5 ms·

No Climate Event in 2,000 Years Compares to What’s Happening Now

44 points by smacktoward 7y ago

cheeky78 7y ago
We haven't even been keeping climate data for 2,000 years, so this headline (and maybe the entire article) is not accurate.
- ouid 7y ago
  "keeping climate data"?!? Have you heard of inference?
- GlenTheMachine 7y ago
  From the article: "Drawing on a huge database of climate-recording objects from all over the world—including tree rings, cave formations, and ancient pollen trapped in lake mud—the study concludes that 98 percent of Earth’s surface experienced its hottest period of the past 2,000 years within living memory. That uniform heat spike “is unprecedented over the Common Era,” it says." In other words, we have used a variety of scientific techniques to fill in the global climate data record.
  - kylek 7y ago
    Yah. Let's just dismiss the fact that 2000 years isn't even a blink in earth's (neigh, human) history. Let's get scared. NEWS FLASH- the universe is constantly changing and always has been
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Looking further in the past doesn't really help. It's been a really long time since we had CO2 concentrations this high.
- easytiger 7y ago
  And the trend of this current warming period has been happening since ~ 1840.
- abeisgreat 7y ago
  I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we have a good understanding of historical weather based on various natural indicators in the earth's crust. You can read about some of the techniques on NOAA.gov (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/how-do-scientists-study-ancient-climates https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/how-do-scientists-study-ancie...)
- yardie 7y ago
  Yes. Yes we have. Not only for the last 2000 years. But the 5000 years as well. It might not be in a format we can easily understand. It may not even be accurate compared to today. Agricultural records go back really, really far.
  - cheeky78 7y ago
    " It may not even be accurate compared to today" This is my point. It's not that accurate and to use it as a basis for climate models is ridiculous.
sandinmytea 7y ago
It's other great unnatural disturbances propelling these developments. Greenhouse gases have nothing on the aforementioned.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Like what? Cthulu's hot breath?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
esarbe 7y ago
Yep. We're pretty much done for. To think that just a few years ago we were hoping to keep the rise in temperature below 2°C. Now it looks like we'll have to deal with temperature increases of up to 5°C. I seriously doubt that our global civilsation will survive this. Edit: Hehe, I seem to have hit a nerve here. Or why else the downvotes?
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  What is actually threatening civilisation here? This requires an effort of adaptation but it is no threat to civilisation. It is not productive to go into hysterics. The plague killed a third of Europe's population and... No civilisation collapse. Edit: none of the replies so far describe credible threats to civilisation, so I'm not sure what your definition of "end of civilisation" is
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    Temperatures high enough to kill people and make agriculture impractical? Rising sea levels that will swallow cities and displace millions? The utter dependence of industrial civilization on the very things that are causing the above? I mean, take your pick.
  - js8 7y ago
    The usual suspects: Droughts and floods causing famine causing conflict causing mass migration causing more conflict. I suggest reading about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Besides the points mentioned by sibling comments, there is also the danger of vital ecosystems collapsing. Phytoplankton for example has been on a steady decline, as are insect populations.
  - esarbe 7y ago
    I don't quite get the downvotes, seems like a legitimate question to be. But to answer your question, let spin the scenario I'm currently most worried about. Let's take for a given that the antrophogenic climate change won't stop at the blue-sky +2°C that everyone is hoping so hard for (hoping, not acting). According to IPCC 2018, we're currently between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. I know! +2°C, that not that much, isn't it! But even at +1°C, we see extreme weather. Huge swaths of India are experiencing drought like /never/ before. Glaciers, the natural water reservoirs in the European Alps, are not growing during the winter anymore. Africa, whose population is expected to continue to grow for another 50 years, is experiencing massive heat waves that threaten to make it's biggest cities inhabitable. We thought that we had about 30 years to mitigate some of the worst damage. But now - holy shit! - the arctic permafrost is melting, about 70 years earlier than expected. And it's starting to release methane, a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, it rapidly decays in the atmosphere, but not before kicking us to about +4°C. This is the temperature range where some Scientists fear that frozen methane from the ocean floor will start to be released. Hey, you say, isn't that what happened at the Permian–Triassic extinction event that killed off 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species? Yes, exactly, I reply. But that took about 300'000 years to come to unfold. Not the 200 years we're dealing with. So, we have a massive temperature increase at an unprecedented speed that makes huge areas of earths most populous regions inhospitable or even inhabitable. Do you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad? Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener (literally) pastures. Do you think they will be welcome with open arms? Yeah, you bet.. Agriculture will be severely impacted. Not only by the heat, but also by the massive die-off that ensues. Because we'll be dealing with a global ecosystem collapse. Most of the animals on earth have a lifecycle that's very closely tuned to the hum of the seasons. At +4°C you can kiss all that goodbye. The only things that will survive are generalist species that have a lifecycle not tied to the seasons. (Cockroaches maybe. Certainly not butterflies. Enjoy them while they last!) There will also be terrible conflicts and wars about the most precious resource of them all. No, not oil. We'll have oil in barrels, nobody will be lacking oil (at least at first). No, I mean water. We'll have water wars. This will also be the time that the global economy will start to collapse. War is good for only one business, and that's weapons. Everything else will suffer. Don't expect any deliveries from your Chinese online shop of choice. Consumer markets will crash, everything will come to a standstill. Now, this is a good moment to have a look at your counter example; the plague that killed almost one third of Europe. You're right; that didn't let civilization collapse, indeed. But you have to understand that back then, about everyone was self-sufficient. You didn't get your electricity from half a continent away. You didn't get your avocados from Peru (you didn't have any avocados, actually...). So while it might be bad that the cobbler doesn't visit anymore (because you really need new shoes), but you can endure that. How many people nowadays are living in cities with no way whatsoever of supporting themselves for more than four days without electricity? Just make the experiment; you have no electricity anymore for the foreseeable future; how long would your dry rations last? Oh, you don't have any dry rations, everything is in the fridge? Good look then. So, between collapsing ecosystem, the hunger riots, the wars and the waves of desperate migrants trying to survive, our global civilization will slowly be ground to pieces. We're so very interdependent nowadays that there's no workable way for it to survive the collapse of our trade networks, the wars, the walls (against migrants). I'm very sorry about this all. I don't know what I could have done different. I wish I could look my children in the eyes and say to to them: "There's hope. Everything will be fine." But I can't. So I tell them the truth. This reply got a bit out of hand, but I think your deserves a fair response. Not downvotes.
Lendal 7y ago
What if this is as good as it gets? What if everyone who can be convinced, has been convinced? Will human beings go to their deaths in large numbers continuing to deny something because they can't handle it? I worry that this could be the peak level of responsibility that we as a species can manage.
- derg 7y ago
  This is what I worry about. At this point, it's not a matter of if people will die, but how many people will die. And if millions of people dying is enough to motivate enough people to do something. We're about to find out if the idea of the 'Great Filter'[0] is true or not. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
js8 7y ago
I feel like this was news 20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph
- esarbe 7y ago
  Yeah, smart people were warning us 20 years ago. We didn't listen then, we don't listen today.
xenocyon 7y ago
This xkcd graphic really shows how massive this effect is: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ A lot of people just don't understand why a couple of degrees is a big deal, not understanding that the rate of change we are talking about is vastly different from what our biosphere has experienced in the past.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Add in the confidence intervals and that graph tells a completely different story.
tunesmith 7y ago
Are these statements accurate? The increase in the rate of climate change is primarily driven by the increased emission of greenhouse gasses. The primary driver of increased greenhouse gasses (GHG) is the burning of fossil fuels emitting CO2. In order to stay below 2°C, we need to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere (source: one of the ipcc reports, I forget which). Our atmosphere currently has somewhere around 1900 gigatons of CO2, as of 2011. (corrected from earlier error.) We are currently releasing 35-40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year (the US releases about 5), and the rate is currently increasing from year to year. In order to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2, we need to reach a GHG emission rate of 0 (zero) overall within the next 7-12 years, through some combination of reduction/elimination of burning fossil fuels, and sequestering of current CO2 from the atmosphere. Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  "Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint. " And work like hell to HOLD THEIR POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE for creating systems that make it possible to completely ignore it. Recycling and buying an electric car are great but basically pissing in the wind. A few hippies (myself included) will not fix this.
- smnplk 7y ago
  And don't think that driving a Tesla will actually reduce carbon footprint ;) Also I am not sure if CO2 is really the most problematic greenhouse gas, I think it's methane. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
  - seba_dos1 7y ago
    Methane is definitely a more potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere for as long as CO2 does, so I wouldn't be so sure about it being more problematic.
  - tunesmith 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

44 points by smacktoward 7y ago

We haven't even been keeping climate data for 2,000 years, so this headline (and maybe the entire article) is not accurate.

ouid 7y ago
"keeping climate data"?!? Have you heard of inference?
GlenTheMachine 7y ago
From the article: "Drawing on a huge database of climate-recording objects from all over the world—including tree rings, cave formations, and ancient pollen trapped in lake mud—the study concludes that 98 percent of Earth’s surface experienced its hottest period of the past 2,000 years within living memory. That uniform heat spike “is unprecedented over the Common Era,” it says." In other words, we have used a variety of scientific techniques to fill in the global climate data record.
- kylek 7y ago
  Yah. Let's just dismiss the fact that 2000 years isn't even a blink in earth's (neigh, human) history. Let's get scared. NEWS FLASH- the universe is constantly changing and always has been
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Looking further in the past doesn't really help. It's been a really long time since we had CO2 concentrations this high.
easytiger 7y ago
And the trend of this current warming period has been happening since ~ 1840.
abeisgreat 7y ago
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we have a good understanding of historical weather based on various natural indicators in the earth's crust. You can read about some of the techniques on NOAA.gov (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/how-do-scientists-study-ancient-climates https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/how-do-scientists-study-ancie...)
yardie 7y ago
Yes. Yes we have. Not only for the last 2000 years. But the 5000 years as well. It might not be in a format we can easily understand. It may not even be accurate compared to today. Agricultural records go back really, really far.
- cheeky78 7y ago
  " It may not even be accurate compared to today" This is my point. It's not that accurate and to use it as a basis for climate models is ridiculous.

sandinmytea 7y ago

It's other great unnatural disturbances propelling these developments. Greenhouse gases have nothing on the aforementioned.

adrianN 7y ago
Like what? Cthulu's hot breath?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

esarbe 7y ago

Yep. We're pretty much done for. To think that just a few years ago we were hoping to keep the rise in temperature below 2°C. Now it looks like we'll have to deal with temperature increases of up to 5°C. I seriously doubt that our global civilsation will survive this. Edit: Hehe, I seem to have hit a nerve here. Or why else the downvotes?

mytailorisrich 7y ago
What is actually threatening civilisation here? This requires an effort of adaptation but it is no threat to civilisation. It is not productive to go into hysterics. The plague killed a third of Europe's population and... No civilisation collapse. Edit: none of the replies so far describe credible threats to civilisation, so I'm not sure what your definition of "end of civilisation" is
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Temperatures high enough to kill people and make agriculture impractical? Rising sea levels that will swallow cities and displace millions? The utter dependence of industrial civilization on the very things that are causing the above? I mean, take your pick.
- js8 7y ago
  The usual suspects: Droughts and floods causing famine causing conflict causing mass migration causing more conflict. I suggest reading about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
- adrianN 7y ago
  Besides the points mentioned by sibling comments, there is also the danger of vital ecosystems collapsing. Phytoplankton for example has been on a steady decline, as are insect populations.
- esarbe 7y ago
  I don't quite get the downvotes, seems like a legitimate question to be. But to answer your question, let spin the scenario I'm currently most worried about. Let's take for a given that the antrophogenic climate change won't stop at the blue-sky +2°C that everyone is hoping so hard for (hoping, not acting). According to IPCC 2018, we're currently between +0.75 and +1.25°C, with the very real possibility of reaching +2°C by the 2040. I know! +2°C, that not that much, isn't it! But even at +1°C, we see extreme weather. Huge swaths of India are experiencing drought like /never/ before. Glaciers, the natural water reservoirs in the European Alps, are not growing during the winter anymore. Africa, whose population is expected to continue to grow for another 50 years, is experiencing massive heat waves that threaten to make it's biggest cities inhabitable. We thought that we had about 30 years to mitigate some of the worst damage. But now - holy shit! - the arctic permafrost is melting, about 70 years earlier than expected. And it's starting to release methane, a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, it rapidly decays in the atmosphere, but not before kicking us to about +4°C. This is the temperature range where some Scientists fear that frozen methane from the ocean floor will start to be released. Hey, you say, isn't that what happened at the Permian–Triassic extinction event that killed off 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species? Yes, exactly, I reply. But that took about 300'000 years to come to unfold. Not the 200 years we're dealing with. So, we have a massive temperature increase at an unprecedented speed that makes huge areas of earths most populous regions inhospitable or even inhabitable. Do you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad? Think about ~1 BILLION PEOPLE on the search for greener (literally) pastures. Do you think they will be welcome with open arms? Yeah, you bet.. Agriculture will be severely impacted. Not only by the heat, but also by the massive die-off that ensues. Because we'll be dealing with a global ecosystem collapse. Most of the animals on earth have a lifecycle that's very closely tuned to the hum of the seasons. At +4°C you can kiss all that goodbye. The only things that will survive are generalist species that have a lifecycle not tied to the seasons. (Cockroaches maybe. Certainly not butterflies. Enjoy them while they last!) There will also be terrible conflicts and wars about the most precious resource of them all. No, not oil. We'll have oil in barrels, nobody will be lacking oil (at least at first). No, I mean water. We'll have water wars. This will also be the time that the global economy will start to collapse. War is good for only one business, and that's weapons. Everything else will suffer. Don't expect any deliveries from your Chinese online shop of choice. Consumer markets will crash, everything will come to a standstill. Now, this is a good moment to have a look at your counter example; the plague that killed almost one third of Europe. You're right; that didn't let civilization collapse, indeed. But you have to understand that back then, about everyone was self-sufficient. You didn't get your electricity from half a continent away. You didn't get your avocados from Peru (you didn't have any avocados, actually...). So while it might be bad that the cobbler doesn't visit anymore (because you really need new shoes), but you can endure that. How many people nowadays are living in cities with no way whatsoever of supporting themselves for more than four days without electricity? Just make the experiment; you have no electricity anymore for the foreseeable future; how long would your dry rations last? Oh, you don't have any dry rations, everything is in the fridge? Good look then. So, between collapsing ecosystem, the hunger riots, the wars and the waves of desperate migrants trying to survive, our global civilization will slowly be ground to pieces. We're so very interdependent nowadays that there's no workable way for it to survive the collapse of our trade networks, the wars, the walls (against migrants). I'm very sorry about this all. I don't know what I could have done different. I wish I could look my children in the eyes and say to to them: "There's hope. Everything will be fine." But I can't. So I tell them the truth. This reply got a bit out of hand, but I think your deserves a fair response. Not downvotes.

Lendal 7y ago

What if this is as good as it gets? What if everyone who can be convinced, has been convinced? Will human beings go to their deaths in large numbers continuing to deny something because they can't handle it? I worry that this could be the peak level of responsibility that we as a species can manage.

derg 7y ago
This is what I worry about. At this point, it's not a matter of if people will die, but how many people will die. And if millions of people dying is enough to motivate enough people to do something. We're about to find out if the idea of the 'Great Filter'[0] is true or not. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

js8 7y ago

I feel like this was news 20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

esarbe 7y ago
Yeah, smart people were warning us 20 years ago. We didn't listen then, we don't listen today.

xenocyon 7y ago

This xkcd graphic really shows how massive this effect is: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ A lot of people just don't understand why a couple of degrees is a big deal, not understanding that the rate of change we are talking about is vastly different from what our biosphere has experienced in the past.

merpnderp 7y ago
Add in the confidence intervals and that graph tells a completely different story.

tunesmith 7y ago

Are these statements accurate? The increase in the rate of climate change is primarily driven by the increased emission of greenhouse gasses. The primary driver of increased greenhouse gasses (GHG) is the burning of fossil fuels emitting CO2. In order to stay below 2°C, we need to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere (source: one of the ipcc reports, I forget which). Our atmosphere currently has somewhere around 1900 gigatons of CO2, as of 2011. (corrected from earlier error.) We are currently releasing 35-40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year (the US releases about 5), and the rate is currently increasing from year to year. In order to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2, we need to reach a GHG emission rate of 0 (zero) overall within the next 7-12 years, through some combination of reduction/elimination of burning fossil fuels, and sequestering of current CO2 from the atmosphere. Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint.

CalRobert 7y ago
"Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint. " And work like hell to HOLD THEIR POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE for creating systems that make it possible to completely ignore it. Recycling and buying an electric car are great but basically pissing in the wind. A few hippies (myself included) will not fix this.
smnplk 7y ago
And don't think that driving a Tesla will actually reduce carbon footprint ;) Also I am not sure if CO2 is really the most problematic greenhouse gas, I think it's methane. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
- seba_dos1 7y ago
  Methane is definitely a more potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere for as long as CO2 does, so I wouldn't be so sure about it being more problematic.
- tunesmith 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]