Last Time CO2 Levels Were This High, There Were Trees at the South Pole (theguardian.com) 408
An anonymous reader shares a report: Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 metres higher than now, and global temperatures 3C-4C warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today. Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3m to 2.6m years ago.
Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights. The Pliocene was a "proper analogy" and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. "The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 metres higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken," he said.
Good. I'm excited for a new continent to explore. (Score:2)
Born too late to conquer the Americas.
BTW, what round for dinosaur?
Re: (Score:2)
Thus demonstrating CO2 alone is not warming (Score:2, Insightful)
This is yet another demonstration that CO2 by itself is not causing much warming. There are other factors involved, including solar output...
That's the worst thing about the whole scare-mongering over global warming, the misleading people into believing such a simplistic picture of a complex system. It lets many believe they are doing something to help, when in fact they are doing nothing or possibly making things worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Thermodynamics still applies to complex systems. If you raise the thermal equilibrium of a system, simple or complex (however you define either term), there will be substantial effects. The only issue in a system with a lot of inputs and variables is just how those changes propagate and how they may effect existing cycles and create new feedback loops and cycles. But using the word "complex" does not make the entire premise disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
You can certainly predict some things. And once again, complexity doesn't make thermodynamics go away.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So you think the safest thing to do is just let CO2 levels rise, because, you know, what exactly? This is an argument based on little more than short term stupidity. We know in general terms that increasing CO2 levels raises surface temperatures, and we know a helluva lot of things like ocean currents and rain belts are influenced mightily by those temperatures. Once again, pleading to ignorance doesn't make thermodynamics go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's beneficial now. It ain't gonna be beneficial in a few decades. And I'd argue that it's already detrimental.
I think I have a better idea than someone who magically thinks that thermodynamics can be defeated by "complexity".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is yet another demonstration that CO2 by itself is not causing much warming.
Serious question: Why do you think so?
The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 in the past ~150 years is essentially an impulse to what is admittedly a complex system. The "demonstration" is that system at something much more closely resembling steady state. So while this "demonstration" isn't a smoking gun of what will happen, but a suggestion of what is possible once the system settles (since I'm not sure we have a comparison of solar output, etc). But it's certainly not evidence that CO2 "isn't causing much war
Why would you assume this is steady state now? (Score:2)
Serious question: Why do you think so?
Because with the CO2 levels we have, predicted rise is only around 2C.
The same CO2 levels that once had the atmosphere at a far greater degree of warming.
Thus there must be some other factor involved in warming climate besides CO2 alone.
The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 in the past ~150 years is essentially an impulse to what is admittedly a complex system.
Correct.
a suggestion of what is possible once the system settles
Serious question for you - why would you assume t
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question for you - why would you assume the earth would settle at CO2 levels we have now? Since the rise is artificial, once the CO2 is absorbed back into the system, and human output decreases over time (inevitable given the uptake in alternative energy), WHY would you, or how could you assume the CO2 levels today are anywhere near a steady state?
Fair question, and perhaps I shouldn't, but not really for the reasons you're pointing at. A better assumption (barring large scale CO2 removal efforts) would have steady state (for purposes of human time spans) be higher than where we are now, into mostly uncharted territory (> 5My).
Indeed a rise of 2C of warming means lots more flourishing plant life around the globe. Guess what plants absorb from the atmosphere...
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. /s
While I too agree that CO2 will likely be absorbed back into the system, even the sharpest drops in CO2 concentration in NOAA ice core data have a drop of ~100 PPM over 10,000-20,000 y
Re:Thus demonstrating CO2 alone is not warming (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not a demonstration that CO2 by itself is not causing much warming. The Pliocene warming occurred over a time span of 2.7 million years, and our CO2 has only had a century to do its work.
Re: (Score:2)
This is yet another demonstration that CO2 by itself is not causing much warming. There are other factors involved, including solar output...
Yeah, all we have to do to stop the sun from shining, then it won't matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
It's like arguing that it was the gravitational attraction by the Earth on the brick that killed you, not the fact that I dropped a brick on your head.
They why tell us it is? (Score:2, Insightful)
Weird it's almost as if a system as large and complex as the earth's climate can't change on a moment's notice the second a large quantity of greenhouse gas is hastily introduced
You should tell that to the people who were promoting fear around runaway warming (even though as the headline points out, CO2 has been this high before with no runaway warming). Or maybe you should talk to multiple politicians today claiming we have only 10 years to solve this problem...
If as you say the climate in fact changes mo
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite is the Chicken Littles who fret that "we'll become Venus", but can't be bothered to look at the amount of carbon involved. Hint: the amount of CO2 in the oceans is a rounding error compared to Venus.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's saying that we have ten years? The IPCC reports suggest that we're probably already too late to stop a few more degrees of warming.
Stop using alarmist-speak (Score:2)
And then we have water, which doesn't consume, but absorbs and acidifies.
The only thing water does when absorbing LOTS of CO2, is becomes more neutral - not acidic.
If you want people to take you seriously, stop using the language of fear and get your terminology correct.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing water does when absorbing LOTS of CO2, is becomes more neutral - not acidic. ... no?
Erm
Quiet... (Score:4, Funny)
And why is this bad? (Score:3, Funny)
Co2 is plant food. the more Co2 the more plants and a greener world. Just what do climate change opponents have against trees?
Re: (Score:3)
Just what do climate change opponents have against trees?
Pretty tricky to grow lush, green trees across vast swaths of land that have turned to desert.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A warmer world means more rain and the Sahara and Australian desert turning green. What makes you think hotter means dryer?
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
A warmer world means more rain and the Sahara and Australian desert turning green. What makes you think hotter means dryer?
It's a little more complicated than all that though. Some places will see more rain, often too much rain, the kind that causes seasonal flooding; many other places will become much drier.
Less of the rain that falls will be in the form of snow, meaning the summer run-offs from mountains will be less; as a result it will be lots of rain, but over a short period of time. Ironically, this means people will be less able to capture water without extensive reservoir and water retainment systems. As we get more rain, we'll have less water to use.
It means many agricultural economies set up on arable land will collapse as the ideal places to grow crops moves to places that don't have the infrastructure set up to grow and harvest them- and by the time they build those infrastructures, if warming continues, the ideal growing places will move again. Because of our lack of ability to capture the more seasonal and more "all-in-one-go" type rains that accompany global warming, we will have less water to irrigate crops with.
So yes, more rain, but not necessarily more usable water. A tree won't benefit from increased rainfall if it all happens in one month of the year and the tree experiences drought like conditions the rest of the year.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats an Engineering problem. One California has solved. We get all our rain in 2 months and still manage to irrigate the Central Valley which is technically a desert.
Other nations can do the same too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the dry areas, hotter means dryer? Moron? ... and even that is not granted, see Thailand, Isaan, or California.
Hotter means only more wet in wet areas
Why are you posting here? You have no clue about anything. Are you paid to post here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nah, it goes the other way. Much more rain on a Warm Earth. Of course, last time is was ferns, not trees, but plant life was so vigorous that it supported herds of 40-ton herbivores.
We know a Warm Earth supports far more life than out current ice age Earth - it's the transition that's worrying. Humans like our territorial boundaries, and if all the arable land moves, even if there's vastly more at the end, there will be wars.
But the problem is humans, not the ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that we aren't trees
the fact that many parasites will thrive in a hotter climate
water is also plant food
guess you won't mind a bit of flooding in your house every spring
what do you have against plant food
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
The big issue is that in the past, these changes have taken place over thousands of years. This could happen over decades. We just can't adapt that quickly.
The sea level rise is the big issue. We're talking about flooding many major cities. We'll try to add sea walls and such, but if we're talking 10+ meters, that won't work.
And without the sea level rise, we're fine as a species, but much of nature isn't, and isn't going to adapt fast enough. We're talking about a major extinction event. Yes, in some cases, this will help agriculture, but the benefits will be dwarfed by the problems.
Re: (Score:2)
You claim the benefits will be dwarfed by the losses. I claim otherwise and while your benefits are in the future mine are here and now - more rain in Africa== more crops== less people starving to death.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly with nature, tens of years is many generations for most species, how do we know they cannot effectively adapt (which is the one thing organisms have been adapting to do since the start of li
Re: (Score:2)
Its not like flyover country is away from water. 80% of the households in flyover country are within driving distance of a river or a lake. In fact the coastal idiots are rich enough to afford the sea walls. Not sure if they will be willing to fund levees in flyover country.
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think your economy is that independent from what happens on the coasts?
Re: (Score:2)
Even NASA has no real choice but to admit that.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
Of course we are all doomed regardless.
This has been debunked (Score:2)
TL;DW, plants "breath" through little holes and they lose water when they breath. The close those holes to prevent water loss. They have to balance water loss and CO2 intake. As temperatures rise they'll take in less CO2 to avoid the water loss. Making increased CO2 a bust for plant growth in many if not most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar.
Re: (Score:2)
>5 million years ago there was no land mass at the south pole. The land mass that is at the south pole now was around the tropics 5 million years ago. So yeah, it had trees and the temperatures were 20-30 C higher. Because it was in a completely different place.
That's only if you believe the people spouting off wild theories about "plate tectonics". Only kooks believe that Earth experienced change before man started dinking around with it.
Re: (Score:2)
5 million years ago there was no land mass at the south pole. The land mass that is at the south pole now was around the tropics 5 million years ago.
Ah, no. The plates move, but they don't move nearly that fast. The Antarctic plate is moving away from the Pacific plate and into the Atlantic plate, but it's moving at 12-14 mm per year at the moment. At the top end it may move at 1 cm per year. So at the beginning of the Pliocene, its Atlantic edge was no more than 50km further south and its Pacific edge was no more than 50km further north. That's about it.
Now that difference could result in radical differences in climate due to changes in ocean curr
Dibs on Patagonia (Score:2)
No need to be concerned about sea level rise (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I disagree. Sea level rise is the threat that we can't mitigate. Farms can shift to different crops. We can tweak the DNA of existing crops to adjust as needed, potentially protecting them from new pests. Yes, we have a public health threat looming, but we can manage it. It will be a disaster for the fishing industry, but we've been overfishing for years, so that's not unexpected even without climate change.
But there's not much we can do about sea level rise except move, and we've put massive infrastru
Re: (Score:2)
Just sayin'..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but then the question is how much of the excess already in the atmosphere will get pulled out by natural activity? Or have we initiated processes that will cause more carbon to be released?
Eh, building will stimulate the economy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netherlands is an entire country below sea level. Given enough money (which fossil fueled development can generate) nations can build similar defenses. That gives enough time to move to higher areas.
The building of flood defenses is just as good a way of pumping money and jobs into an economy than building a military bigger than the next 20 militaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Netherlands is an entire country below sea level.
So is Switzerland. What is your point?
Re:No need to be concerned about sea level rise (Score:5, Insightful)
Just sayin'..
Re: (Score:2)
we, as a species, could could stop being pants-on-head stupid about this, get our collective fingers out of our collective ears, uncover our collective eyes, actually acknowledge this shit is happening and it's at least in part our fault, actually DO something about it.
Just sayin'..
Spot on. For example, just think of the reductions "we" could achieve were "we" to cut back on banal moral preening on the internet.
Just sayin'...
Re: (Score:2)
In my younger days, I used to be a staunch environmentalist and would ridicule those bringing up economic interests as stupidly "thinking about money" when so much more important matters were on the table. When I got older I realized economic concerns deserve as much of a priority as anything else - "money" is actually a proxy
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the world manages to farm just fine without an annual frost. Wake up and smell the Tea. North Am is not the breadbasket of the world. The Ganges Delta and the Yangtze Delta produce most of the human food in the world. Losing North Am would mean no more Beef or Pork but humans would be just fine (Humans dont eat the shit North Am farmers grow. They grow animal feed not food)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest export nation for rice is ... Thailand. Or was a year ago ... not sure :D
Pliocene epoch (Score:2)
When new animal species (including our ancestors) sprang up, existing species diversified and successfully spread across all the continents.
Sounds good, man. I can hardly wait.
Re: (Score:2)
That works much better when change is gradual.
Re: (Score:2)
No, by gradual change, I mean on a geological timescale like in the past. Now we're compressing milenia into decades.
Cool - a whole continent will open up! Antarctica (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Misinformation again (Score:2, Offtopic)
Last time the CO2 levels where that high, Antarctica, the continent in question, was not at the south pole ... wow, a no brainer. Firth of all the continent had not drifted so far and secondly the earth axis was different. No idea why "climate researchers" don't know basic stuff like this. (There was even a period where Antarctica already was down there, but the earth axis was in a position that half of it was in tempered zones ... one idea why some people think the mythical Atlantis could have been there b
OMG WERE ALL GOING TO DIE (Score:2)
The weather is nuts. That's obvious. What to do about it is not at all obvious. And any "solution" that doesn't have China and India on board isn't a solution.
The world will come to an end in 12 years. It's on the internet, so it must be true. AOC said so, so it must be true. How will people to do their best to make the world a better place if they've already given up?
Personally, I see it as an opportunity. Consider how we could increase agriculture productivity if temperate and northern climates had lo
Re:And now, on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
It's not about what humanity did (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the "Pilocene beech fossils in Antarctica when CO2 was at similar level to today point to planet’s future."
There never was a "Pilocene" epoch.
Re: (Score:2)
There never was a "Pilocene" epoch.
There was so, but it ended when Millennials decided they hate being mammals, and started shaving everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 'disease' may be FATAL; you really want to deal with that? The 'cure' is NOT FATAL. At worst it'll be a little inconvenient. But if someone (You?) can't be bothered to change even ONE THING about the way you live, in order to ensure the Human Species gets to continue and the Earth remains habitable, then you're the problem, not the 'cure'.
We do not NEED to keep using fossil fuels. There are viable alternatives, including nuclear power.
We can all move to
Re: (Score:3)
First time in my life I have been called a right-winger LOL.
I do like poking people's assumptions whther on the right or the left and the climate change industry has become a gravy train for too many and their bubble needs to be poked.
Re:No denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to move towards a border free world not to try and assuage our collective guilt by forcing poorer nations to take more inefficient development routes.
As it is most of the impact is going to be on North Am and Europe - areas best able to take on the costs while the benefits are mostly going to the global South.
Except for a few small island nations (we can just give them refugee status and US residency. The number is too small to matter)
Re: (Score:3)
The solution is to move towards a border free world
In a border-free world you will be ruled over from half a world away by those who are the most ruthless, authoritarian, and driven to attain ever more power & control.
Sounds lovely. Don't worry, everybody gets a Harkonnen-style heart-plug. /s
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR version of the below - There isn't a bad or good thing. It's a question of are the governments of this planet ready to spend the required money to get us ready for a planet with global warming? The answer is "no". Therefore, I question if global warming is truly something we actually want.
I question why is that a bad thing?
You shouldn't question things as bad or good. What you should ask is "are the consequences ones we as a species wish to deal with down the road?" Ultimately, global warming includes things that will make some th
Re: (Score:3)
A warmer world might mean more rains.
But not necessarily at the spots you want it, see: https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com] or https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/... [nasa.gov]
Assuming that the upcoming climate change has anything *good* in it, is just idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Bangladesh always needed the type of flood defenses we have in the Netherlands, and more, and it could never afford them. There will probably be a whole lot less of Bangladesh in the foreseeable future thanks to global warming, which makes it harder for the country to earn the money for flood defence.
Vastly Underestimated (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Canada and Russia will be doing great as more land becomes farmable and the permafrost retreats further north but when water supplies start running out in the US and elsewhere governments are going to have to take action to secure the water their citizens need to live. This is going to cause political instability and probably wars.
Climate change is definitely survivable as a species but the death, instability, famine and ecological damage it will cause is going to be terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is not that it wont be bad for Europe. My point is why should the rest of the world care as it will be better for them? if Europe wants to hold on to the current climate then they had better pay countries to not use fossil fuels instead of trying to scare them into not using fossil fuels.
The 15-20 m scenarios are as likely to happen as an asteroid wiping us off in the next 100 years. They are outliers in the model.
The most likely scenarios are 2-3 meter sea level rise which can be handled with Neth
Re:Nope, absolute denial. (Score:5, Informative)
Satellite pictures clearly show a greener Sahara.
This is complete bullcrap. Satellite photos show the exact opposite: The Sahara is expanding southwards into the Sahel, and the Sahel is expanding into the grasslands further south.
Google for "Sahara expansion" and you will see dozens of articles and satellite photos documenting it.
Google for "Sahara greening" and you will see a handful of small projects to grow crops in the desert by draining non-renewable aquifers, along with a few denialist websites that refer to "doomsday-obsessed media, activists and ruling politicians" but are devoid of any actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Satellite pictures clearly show a greener Sahara.
No they don't moron.
The only single spot that is greener is a Egypt research project west of the River Nil.
The rest of the Sahara is growing by miles every year in every direction where it does not hit the mediterranean sea.
Re: (Score:2)
The title of the article in your link is "Warming May Turn Africa’s Arid Sahel Green: Researchers." I don't know where or when you learned to speak English, but when I was taught English, I learned that there is a definite difference between "may" and "will."
Re: (Score:2)
Its obvious you still havnt learnt to speak English. Never confuse American with English.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The large map at the top of the article in your link is titled "Change in Leaf Area (1982-2015)" and the bulk of the Sahara is depicted in shades of gray rather than the colors in the legend because there is no leaf area to measure in the Sahara. However, the Sahel, the region on the southern edge of the Sahara, is depicted in reds, oranges, and yellows, which according to the legend correspond to areas of declining leaf area. So according to your source, the Sahara is browning, the exact opposite of what
Re:No denial (Score:4, Insightful)
All your questions have been answered and the result is that we have to reduce the amount of CO2 we emit enormously if we want to keep a nice planet to live on. Everybody who reads a good newspaper every now and then knows that. So why are you still asking those questions?
Re:No denial (Score:4, Informative)
BTW, what part of a Warm Earth makes this "not a nice planet to live on". More plant life, more arable land, basically the current tropics as year-round weather everywhere. Seems quite nice to me.
One of the predicted outcomes of the global warming are non-survivable areas. Right now a healthy human with access to shade and sufficient water can survive natural heat anywhere on the Earth. If the climate warms some more, there'll be regions where humans can't phsyicaly survive without air conditioning.
The predicted locations will be in India and Asia - the opposite of what you'd call "Western countries". See: https://insideclimatenews.org/... [insideclimatenews.org] or http://climateguide.nl/2018/12... [climateguide.nl]
Oh, and Texas is predicted to be affected too.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, unchecked CO2 emissions will result in a plethora of changes, most of them will be bad and/or require very costly mitigation. Like abandoning coastal cities (Miami, Houston, Shanghai,...) and even whole countries (Bangladesh).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's you buying all that cheap crap you don't need that makes the Chinese pollute. Have you ever thought about that?
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably being sarcastic but humanity has only demonstrated one thing over the past 20 years, we don't fucking deserve to survive. I'm off to do by bit by running the A/C with the window open.
Re:Conservative Morality (Score:4, Insightful)
We weren't here the last time CO2 levels were that high. Yes, the Earth survived. Hell, the Earth survived the Dinosaur Killer strike, but a shit ton of species died.
It's hard to assess with statements like that whether the poster is just playing a rhetorical game, or is indeed a complete fucking moron.
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to assess with statements like that whether the poster is just playing a rhetorical game, or is indeed a complete fucking moron.
No, that isn't hard. Just toss out your false and baseless assumption that you should choose between the two things that there is evidence of. The more likely answer of course is that they're complete fucking morons playing rhetorical games.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey dipshit, humans weren't around for either of those two things. That's the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
The debate is over.
"Money is morality" is the only morality you will care to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing about "Freedom", it's not the fluffy-nebulous term people think it is. It's actually quantifiable well defined. "Freedom" is options.
For example: In the desktop computer world, a user largely has three degrees of freedom in regard to operating systems. Linux, Windows, Mac. If the user needs to use Microsoft Office, then their freedoms are limited further.
Similarly, "Religious Freedom" is the number and types of religions and practices allowed. In the US, we generally have a pretty high degree of
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't propose an alternative. You didn't even argue against my statement. You post amounts to "nuh-uh, stupid-head!" Would you care to post an intelligent response?
Do you think morality should be concerned with human happiness and well-being, or something else? If so, do you have some way to quantify that that's better than the well-studied economic approach?
Re:Conservative Morality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conservatives only ones fixing climate change (Score:5, Informative)
I'm right there with you about the left's ridiculous opposition to nuclear... but this seems to be an ongoing trend with the right, you're great at pointing out the problems with the left, but supremely intellectually dishonest about how much worse the right's alternative is. Sometimes I think SuperKendall is Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Huckabee-Sanders with all the double-talk and lying about conservative policy outcomes like "well conservatives said policy x will help y too, therefore it does" in spite of overwhelming evidence it will hurt, not help y. Trump is weakening environmental protections and you damn well know it. If you think that's fine because the dangers of AGW are exaggerated and pollution isn't all that bad, that's one thing, it's stupid sure, but to outright deny what he's doing is just dishonest.
Re:Conservatives only ones fixing climate change (Score:4, Interesting)
Trumo trying to fix the climate? I laughed out loud reading that. And if you would have taken the time to actually look at what your link points to you would see that Trump is still the same second hand car salesman we all know and hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot isn't a tech site, dipshit. It's "News for Nerds". Climate change is news for biology/ecology/sociology nerds.