3 ms·

> climate change occur over much longer time periods I’m curious how we are sure that we aren’t under sampling? The climate data sample frequency I’ve seen fro

> climate change occur over much longer time periods I’m curious how we are sure that we aren’t under sampling? The climate data sample frequency I’ve seen from the distant past has not been on the order of decades or even single centuries. Is it possible that there is sometimes a natural higher frequency temperature oscillation that doesn’t show up in the natural records with our current techniques?

rsynnott 3y ago
You’d see mass extinctions.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Not necessarily? That depends on the magnitude of the oscillation. If the present Earth continued warming for the next 50 years and then cooled down again, would we expect to see an extinction event in the fossil record, if we ignore human impacts other than temperature? I think the temperature change would have to be larger for that to happen? I'm not saying this is what is happening, or commenting on how likely it is, I'm just not sure why everyone seems to be ruling it out completely and I would like someone to fill me in.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    > If the present Earth continued warming for the next 50 years and then cooled down again, would we expect to see an extinction event in the fossil record, if we ignore human impacts other than temperature? Over the next 50 years? Yeah, almost certainly. If the current change continues for the next 50 years, you’re going to have ecosystems changing _dramatically_. Of course, it’s kind of speculative, as you _can’t_ really disentangle the other effects of humanity easily, but if the current trend continues for another 50 years, it’s hard to see how that would not lead to a mass extinction event. > I'm not saying this is what is happening, or commenting on how likely it is, I mean, I think we can say that is _definitely_ not what is happening right now. It is not just doing it on its own. Like, what would the mechanism be?
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      You sound like you are a person with the certainty I'm confused by. You haven't included any rationale, you are just very sure about things.

rsynnott 3y ago

You’d see mass extinctions.

pfannkuchen 3y ago
Not necessarily? That depends on the magnitude of the oscillation. If the present Earth continued warming for the next 50 years and then cooled down again, would we expect to see an extinction event in the fossil record, if we ignore human impacts other than temperature? I think the temperature change would have to be larger for that to happen? I'm not saying this is what is happening, or commenting on how likely it is, I'm just not sure why everyone seems to be ruling it out completely and I would like someone to fill me in.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > If the present Earth continued warming for the next 50 years and then cooled down again, would we expect to see an extinction event in the fossil record, if we ignore human impacts other than temperature? Over the next 50 years? Yeah, almost certainly. If the current change continues for the next 50 years, you’re going to have ecosystems changing _dramatically_. Of course, it’s kind of speculative, as you _can’t_ really disentangle the other effects of humanity easily, but if the current trend continues for another 50 years, it’s hard to see how that would not lead to a mass extinction event. > I'm not saying this is what is happening, or commenting on how likely it is, I mean, I think we can say that is _definitely_ not what is happening right now. It is not just doing it on its own. Like, what would the mechanism be?
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    You sound like you are a person with the certainty I'm confused by. You haven't included any rationale, you are just very sure about things.