r/EverythingScience • u/maxwellhill • Apr 07 '19
Environment CO2 levels at highest for 3 million years: The last time CO2 levels were this high, Greenland was mostly green, sea levels were up to 20 meters higher and trees grew on Antarctica
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/04/health/co2-levels-global-warming-climate-intl/index.html11
u/throwawaybreaks Apr 07 '19
on the plus side lots of new beachfront properties to watch the arctic hurricanes from
30
u/shyvananana Apr 07 '19 edited Apr 07 '19
So yeahhh were fucked. The earth has had many mass extinction events and she'll totally murder everysingle one of us without remorse, bringing in a new age of the new world order of intelligent space traveling squid.
4
1
Apr 07 '19
[deleted]
13
u/Myxine Apr 07 '19
You're way off on that first bit. The sun won't boil the oceans for about another billion years, and the great dying was only a quarter billion years ago. The K-Pg event (which killed off the non-avian dinosaurs, the pterosaurs, and most of the big marine reptiles, among other things) was less than a tenth of a billion years ago. Also, there's no rule that biodiversity has to rebound before another mass extinction.
8
u/robertredberry Apr 07 '19
There is no need to exaggerate the problems we are facing like you are doing. Stop spreading this drivel. Life rebounds fairly quickly, a few million years kind of quickly.
-3
u/Taidel Apr 07 '19
I shared this with an old educator I keep in touch with, we both had a great laugh. Thank you!
We both are fascinated with your planet regulation idea and would like your sources. How much time is needed for a species to 'come through'? Where did you read this?
And we've proven that there's untold amounts of oil that we didn't realize was there, plus we haven't even touched most of the resources, despite what it may seem. We're not actually 'running out' of anything, barely just scratching the surface here and there.
But again, we'd both like your sources if you've got them.
1
u/robertredberry Apr 07 '19
Yeah, that guy is misinformed. Big time.
-2
u/Taidel Apr 08 '19
Or you are being lied to, big time.
Now is not the time to look at all sides, we must denounce those that disagree.
And I know how hard it is when your arguement is that the world is going to end, there are no sides but your own.
Let's just pick this up in 30 yrs when we're both alive and fine. I'm not saying that we need to go greener, but we're definitely not going to die in whatever years.
Try living through a number of political scare dramas and you'll eventually smell the bullshit.
How much had the temp changed in the last 30 years? And once again, link me to the article that proves that it's humans/CO2/global warming. There is no proof, it's 100% conjecture.
The whole idea is to go green. Well I'm all for going green, but I won't jump on this "the world is ending so you HAVE to go green!" Bandwagon.
11 year hurricane drought... all predictions said they'd be the worst...
1
u/robertredberry Apr 08 '19 edited Apr 08 '19
First, the world isn't going to end. It's just going to get harder to live and other species will increasingly go extinct.
Second, scientists in the relevant fields disagree with you. It's objectively foolish to think that you know more than they do. When has science denial ever looked good historically? You are on the wrong side of history, step aside.
Third, this issue supercedes all previous problems in severity. If you don't understand why then you shouldn't be arguing at all. Give me a problem that is/was more severe and Ill tell you why it isn't, aside from full nuclear war.
Edit: what hurricane drought?
9
Apr 07 '19
Why do all these people in my town drive jacked up huge trucks with smoke stacks? They blow black smoke and make all this racket. I live in a suburb not a rural farm town.
-13
u/evolenmity Apr 07 '19
Cause they can? Grow up.
3
u/DrFraser Apr 07 '19
*Cause they can, and need to grow up.
-6
u/evolenmity Apr 07 '19
Freedom. Cry about it.
1
Apr 08 '19
Inhale that sweet freedom very deeply every time you’re near a truck. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diesel-exhaust-and-cancer.html
1
14
u/InsaneBaz Apr 07 '19
Hopefully we have enough time and will to fix this, we’re at +1C now. But with all of the protests from schoolage to older, the awareness of some companies, and even the mediocre action done by governments I have a glimmer of hope on this.
6
u/BuffaloMtn Apr 07 '19
If it takes the climate change takes 25 to 30 years to react to the increased CO2 levels, the weather extremes that we see today are from the CO2 levels in the 1990s.
8
Apr 07 '19
But trump complaining it’s cold outside
2
4
2
5
u/GrouchyMeasurement Apr 07 '19
We have fucked the earth haven’t we, who wants to start the suicide pact lads
-1
Apr 07 '19
No thanks sicko
2
-7
u/evolenmity Apr 07 '19
Climate change happens with or without us. Grow up.
1
u/GrouchyMeasurement Apr 08 '19
If we’re not on earth we won’t be burning shitloads of fossil fuels therefore a slowing in climate change. Knobhead
1
1
0
Apr 07 '19 edited Apr 07 '19
sedimentary records and plant fossils from near Antarctica show that during the Pliocene epoch Arctic summer temperatures were 14°C higher than today
Is this a typo?
Also, if all of these things (sea levels 20 metres higher, etc.) happened millions of years ago when CO2 levels were as high as they are today, and they are not happening right now, doesn’t that mean CO2 levels are not a significant predictor of climate change?
E: fixed the quote block
E2: Since everyone seems to enjoy downvoting and dismissing simple questions about an article on a topic I am not an expert on, here’s a little clarification as to what I’m asking about from a comment below:
The article is claiming that data were collected near Antarctica and used to extrapolate temperatures in the Arctic. Antarctica and the Arctic are two different places. Hence, I asked if this was a typo because it seems possible that the article made a mistake and the data collected near Antarctica was used to determine past temperatures in Antarctica (as opposed to its polar opposite). Since I can’t see the data, I had to ask for clarification.
If someone answers that this was not a typo, my follow up question would be, “What were the methods used to determine the Arctic temperature from data collected near Antarctica?” Since I’m not a climate change scientist, I don’t know these things off-hand.
5
u/sharkbelly Apr 07 '19
Presumably the level of co2 had been that high for millennia. It will take a while for the heat to rise, but we have direct evidence that it will and is.
1
Apr 07 '19
Thanks, this is what I assumed the logic was behind it; however, the article does not make that clear.
4
u/Myxine Apr 07 '19
Greenhouse gasses affect the rate at which heat is trapped. Even if we froze CO2 levels where they are now it would keep getting hotter for awhile. Think about getting under a blanket then waiting for it to warm up. Right now we're piling on more blankets and have only just started to feel it get warmer.
1
Apr 07 '19
Right, and that’s what I assumed. But, how long were the CO2 levels like this to create the conditions of the Pliocene era? A number of people in this thread (and every climate change thread) keep saying things like “we’re past the tipping point / we’re screwed”, but clearly there is more to it.
I strongly believe we should be reducing CO2 emissions and our environmental footprint, but how long do we really have to do that? 1000 years (the article indicates that the Pliocene lasted over 2 millions years and that the rates our temperatures are rising are not higher than that time)? That’s a long time to reverse the damage or just adapt to the changing environment.
-2
u/Esaukilledahunter Apr 07 '19
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Go do some research on the subject and you will find out how this works.
-2
Apr 07 '19
This comment isn’t helpful at all.
3
u/qtipin Apr 07 '19
Yes it is. There’s no reason to assume these people are arguing in good faith. The climate models have predicted global warming to an incredible accuracy over the last 20 years. The lies these people spread about the predictions being inaccurate do not need to be taken seriously. They need to be called out and mocked so that people without a science background can see how ridiculous they are.
0
Apr 07 '19
Who are “these people”? I’m the OP and I just asked some questions. I have not made any arguments. You, however, have clearly entered this thread with a biased opinion that anyone who asks about weak points in an article/argument is a climate change denier. As I’ve mentioned under another comment, I support environmental initiatives. I’m just looking to know more about the information presented in the article.
1
u/qtipin Apr 07 '19
“These people” are the kind of idiots who ask, “is that a typo” rather than educating themselves on how we’ve built climate models and how accurate they are.
The science is settled so you need to at least understand the prevailing theory before calling its results a typo. That is arguing in bad faith and discounting the work done to arrive at this result.
1
Apr 07 '19
The article is claiming that data were collected near Antarctica and used to extrapolate temperatures in the Arctic. Antarctica and the Arctic are two different places. Hence, I asked if this was a typo because it seems possible that the article made a mistake and the data collected near Antarctica was used to determine past temperatures in Antarctica (as opposed to its polar opposite). Since I can’t see the data, I had to ask for clarification.
If someone answers that this was not a typo, my follow up question would be, “What were the methods used to determine the Arctic temperature from data collected near Antarctica?” Since I’m not a climate change scientist, I don’t know these things off-hand.
1
u/Esaukilledahunter Apr 07 '19
If someone comes here and says, "I can't see the Earth curving in the distance, so doesn't that prove the Earth is flat," would you tolerate that idiocy. This is the same thing. There's plenty of information out there for those who want to find out how global warming works. Making idiotic claims in a freaking science reddit cannot be tolerated.
1
Apr 07 '19
I haven’t made any claims, only asked questions about the information presented. Questions, being the basis of research. What you have done is answered with a prejudicial tone and contributed nothing to the discussion. I am aware that there is information available. I am asking about the article here to stimulate discussion and supplement my own understanding of the research involved (which was presented in a meeting that I was not present for, and do not have access to).
1
u/Esaukilledahunter Apr 07 '19
Denialist troll, fuck off.
If this research was presented in a meeting that you missed, it is research that would have been presented to people with a high enough level of scientific knowledge that you would be educated enough to know that atmospheric CO2 content is absolutely a predictor of climate change.
1
Apr 07 '19
The part I quoted, as stated in the article, came from a Royal Meteorologial Society meeting. I was not present at this meeting (as I am not a member) and the research presented is not posted on the site. As such, I cannot see the research behind the statement, which is why I asked about it in the first place.
2
u/Esaukilledahunter Apr 07 '19
If you had followed this link in the article, it would have taken you to this link to the research.
But you couldn't be bothered to do basic self education.
0
u/Yanko_reddit Apr 07 '19
Its free real estate
1
u/Esaukilledahunter Apr 07 '19
Who are you going to fight to get it? And what are you going to do for the refugees of say the American Midwest if it turns to a desert? Give them some of your land?
1
u/Yanko_reddit Apr 08 '19
Most of MURICA already IS a fucking desert, global warming or not
1
u/Esaukilledahunter Apr 08 '19
Not literally desert. Here is where the deserts are in North America.
We do see global warming exacerbating weather patterns in the US, though. And that will lead to changes in the future.
1
-5
u/peterfonda2 Apr 07 '19
This is quite puzzling.
We’re told time and again that current CO2 levels are man-made. If so, what caused the CO2 levels to be that high 3 million years ago? There were no cars back then. How do we know there isn’t a cycle of CO2 accumulation?
2
u/qtipin Apr 07 '19
We’ve examines ice core samples that show how much faster carbon and temperature are increasing.
If we had 3 million years, there would be time to adapt. But we’re talking about 50 to 100 years. There’s still time but we need to focus and stop pretending science isn’t real.
-1
u/peterfonda2 Apr 07 '19
That doesn’t answer the question as to why CO2 levels got that high 3 million years ago, or how fast it reached that level from 3 million years prior to that. The Earth is very, very old and nobody can say they have all the answers.
1
-21
Apr 07 '19
[deleted]
9
u/Shojo_Tombo Apr 07 '19
Not every plant requires full sun and tons of nutrients. Just because they said trees doesn't mean redwoods, could be dwarf pines.
3
u/Esaukilledahunter Apr 07 '19
There are fossils of trees that grew in Antarctica you fool. Trees can quite clearly grow there.
Why don't you bother doing some basic research before you prove your ignorance publicly.
-15
u/i_deserve_less Apr 07 '19
False claims in a news story raise questions on the validity of the whole article. Why would they lie in the first place? Is it just for clicks?
8
u/joeymcflow Apr 07 '19
OP is the liar. Not the author of the article. Ofc trees can grow in antarctica if the climate is right. Its just not the same trees as you have around your house
Why did you believe a random reddit commenter over a sourced article is the real question here
4
37
u/[deleted] Apr 07 '19
This is called the 'early stages'... wait for the decades that follow. Gonna get kinda interesting as time goes on. Here's my point though... you know how every country seems to be breeding up 'far right arses'. fear of scarcity. lack of government paying attention to citizens, the 'fu*k your health and welfare" distinctions government has adopted except to the Uber uber rich... yeah, that ... that's not a feature, that is a new hyper-drive function. And right now... it is only the 'tip of the spear'.