2 ms·
10 thousand years is a little longer than I was thinking, but OK - it's a lot less than the millions mentioned by the GP.
by wizofaus 4y ago
10 thousand years is a little longer than I was thinking, but OK - it's a lot less than the millions mentioned by the GP.
- Kaibeezy 4y agoCO2 levels, maybe. But it won’t bring back the extinct species or drowned cities.
- wizofaus 4y agoNo, but there's every reason to expect there'd be an explosion of new species. I'd much rather that happen while there are humans around to witness it of course but I'm not sure if we deserve to.
- orwin 4y agoThink of it as the half life of CO2 being 500 years (that's not that, but the curve is similar). The climate in 5000 years will be sufficiently similar to the one in 1850 for everything to settle back. Except to be honest, we're not sure. The ocean will also probably reemit in the atmosphere some CO2 it is capturing right now (becoming less acidic), so with absorption slowing down, we're not sure how it will go. We know that it will need at least 10 000 years to get back, but we might ignore other phenomenons. Maybe bigger (so higher) Cyclones will accelerate the time needed for the excess CO2 in the high tropsphere to come down. The sad, harsh and i guess also beautiful thing about this climate change event is that it is a full-scale experiment that have never been done before, that will change everything and on which we don't have enough theories to predict exactly what will happen.