The US target in the Kyoto Protocol was a 7% reduction from the 1990 baseline in 2008-2012. That target has still not been reached, because the emissions continued growing until the mid-2000s.

easy to cut emissions when you deindustrialize

The Kyoto protocols contained three market based emissions reduction schemes of the type that this research shows to have meaningful impacts.

Purely logically that means nothing.

It’s like saying “John refused to do chemotherapy yesterday and he’s still alive today”.

Yeah, he had some improvement. That doesn’t mean anything about whether or not a certain action would have led to more improvement or not.

Further, specifically regd. The Kyoto protocol, the largest economy in the world not signing the Kyoto Protocol or exiting the Paris agreement has massive knock on effects on other countries as well. Their leaders will find it much more difficult to push better policies and can easily refuse being bound to actual targets because why should they do it if the largest economy in the world doesn’t.

How much of that is due to outsourced production though?

While that's predicted to happen, it doesn't appear to have happened yet.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

> In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability, although greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming.

Don't forget about the category 4 Hurricane Helene from September of 1958.

Every time there's a huge storm you shouldn't just go about yelling "climate change!", just like you can't claim we've fixed climate change just because we have a few nice calm sunny days.

> Changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the only way to change the climate, and is unlikely to be the cheapest way to change the climate.

We are changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is the main driver for the climate change. You probably wanted to say, that not changing the amount of CO2 is unlikely to be the cheapest way to keep the climate as it is, didn't you?

Roger Pielke Jnr has coined "Pielke's Iron Law" .

It is :

"If there is an iron law of climate policy, it is that when policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time."

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-iron-law-of-climate...

It looks like a pretty good rule of thumb.

Who cares about the optimal climate, we just need the rate of change to remain at a low enough level that nature (including humans) can adapt. We seem to be on the edge of that limit already.

Aren't we going to lose Trillions of dollars forever to climate change anyway?

I would really like the cost of CO2 emission to start to tend towards the true cost of capture and storage of CO2. At the moment that price is heavy and I think that should be the goal and any fines for organisations that breach emissions laws should be set on that basis. It might never come down but I hope it does but in the meantime that is the price of emissions.

Its a (well known in climate science) impact that the temperature over land is about double that of the average warming. The other effect is that the warming isn't evenly spread across the world so some places are gaining temperature considerably faster than others.

You might live in an unusual place or Apple could be providing misleading data. The 5c above norm isn't accurate for the majority of the world.

When there are cold years we are told this is short term weather and not long term climate. But every warm year and storm is evidence of long term change.

I can't say for 1998, but this paper[1] compares the IPCC projections made from 2000 and onwards.

The earlies estimation underpredicted temperature rise while later ones did better.

I also checked the IPCC predictions from 2001 myself a couple of years ago[2], and across multiple factors like sea rise, glacier loss etc observed values seemed to be within the predictions.

[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16264-6

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27166369

> We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO 2 and other climate drivers.

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_eval...

18 years later and it's still the misleading propaganda it has always been.

(From "Burn After Reading", a wonderful movie)

What a weird statement. Ideally 0% of policies would fail, since the goal of having a policy is to succeed. If you're opposed to any climate policy, you should wish for NaN% failed policies instead (i.e. no policies at all).

Aiming for 100% failed policies sound like a way to make everyone, including you, unhappy.

I know someone who was a post-doc researcher in climate policy. a seeming sorely needed are of expertise. But a large enough group of the population just wanted to cry, the government is too big, and we don't want to waste money on policy analysts so there has been no opportunity to actually do anything.

Even if we were affected we wouldn't support policy that negatively impacts our quality of life. The point of policy is to improve QoL.

> So there’s a 0% chance that they’ll supports any climate policy

/me reviews dozens of serious mass actions, hundreds of long form publications, and legislation in California and elsewhere.. wondering how this fits with "zero percent" of anything.. can we regroup and rephrase a bit here?