Species are currently adapted to the relatively cool conditions that have dominated over the past few million years. And we see in the paleoclimate record, rapid climate change has, in the past, been associated with mass extinction events.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
when I teach my Climate History (an intro paleoclimate) course I talk about *rates of change* every week — many of the most "rapid" events in Earth history were likely slower than today (acknowledging the uncertainty in constraining past rates) and they still impacted the biosphere in major ways
So when skeptics naively show this graph to argue that because it was warmer in the past, climate change today is not a concern, ask them if they have actually read the paper. Because it tells us increasing atmospheric CO2 by nearly 50% in a century is quite concerning!
Historically, 560 ppm CO2 probably led to a global average temperature of about 21°C (more than 7°C higher). Who's to say that won't happen to us too? Maybe we're just lucky that it's taking a very long time to reach that temperature. (From https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-skeptics-have-new-favorite ):
My sister just says "Humans will adapt, we have in the past." Yes, we have. But we haven't had to adapt to such a rate of change, and nature might not adapt alongside us in which case it doesn't matter! She drives me nuts.
Yes, exactly! She's also against immigrants (regardless of the reason) so she's in for one hell of a shock when climate change really starts to bite. Either she'll have to put up with a lot more forrins, or she'll actually become an immigrant herself if the AMOC collapses.
"Depuis 12 000 ans, l’Homo sapiens sapiens est seul à avoir survécu. Il occupe toute notre planète." les autres ont disparus. c'est sans doute ça l'adaptation dont elle parle.
Yes, it might not be extinction level. But it's going to be bloody hard for a while. She lives very close to the coast, and depending on which models used will likely be routinely flooded in 5-10 years. She just laughs and says I'm an idiot.
People don’t get how adapting works for a species. It’s not that all individuals adapt. Most individuals will die due to the new circumstances, and left will be only those who can cope. And so the species adapts.
Yes! In this context, “adapting” is just a shorthand for “dying in large enough numbers to skew the gene pool”. And in a geopolitical context, not much better (famine, exodus, epidemics, wars).
Yes, and she's likely old enough (70) to avoid the worst. But she'll still see some major effects. And, I admit, there's a part of me that wants her to see it just to go "Told ya so." But that affects everyone, so no. I don't want that really.
Good overviews also by Scotese and Royer. Pretty much any paper on past climates will have CO2 as the main culprit, hothouse or icehouse. We know where it comes from and goes to.
Dr. Hausfather, you are absolutely right. Whoever shows that graph unwittingly hopes for the end of the current human civilization (and perhaps our extinction through wars, hunger and disease)
By showing the graph, they paradoxically hope for the replacement of the human species (born in climates that tended towards cold) with new dinosaurs or other species that will adapt better to the heat.
The pace of change today is slow compared to any of the hundreds of Dansgar-Oeschger events that happened during the Pleistocene. Species are currently extremely well adapted to these rapid fluctuations of climate - any species that couldn't adapt is gone. This simply cannot be ignored.
While the cooling of the younger Dryas is liberally being pointed out as rapid climate deterioration these days, the *much* faster Bolling-Allerod event (30-40 years from basically glacial conditions to 1-2 degree below modern day), before that is completely ignored.
We live in a time when production capacity for solar cells is very high and costs are bonkers low. Wind energy is typically on par or cheaper than fossil energy. Investment in renewables outstrips those in fossil fuels by a mile.
Give a fair account of the science, including the inconvenient parts.
The *one* thing that stands out about the late Cenozoic are the extremely rapid and high amplitude fluctuations of temperature. It's generally seen as a major factor in the evolution of the human brain - an adaptation to the erratic changes of climate.
So I really don't understand how the argument about the pace of change - especially given the undeniable geologic record of the Eemian - can even be brought forth.
The climate gets warmer and wetter and nature adapts - rapidly. In the Eemian, it's called climate amelioration for good reason.
And, just for the record, average temperature on earth is controlled by albedo, sea- and air circulation (both vertical and meridonal) and greenhouse gasses - of which H2O is much more important and much more complex to model than CO2.
Turns out climate science is much harder than "It's the CO2!"
Comments
Yeah, and there will be earth after humans.
Yeah, everybody except your fucking uncle you nitwit.
Today, such migrations cause severe problems...
Tell her the story of doggerland, that could be funny
Both sides have lots to answer.
Give a fair account of the science, including the inconvenient parts.
Everything had to adapt to these rapid changes
The climate gets warmer and wetter and nature adapts - rapidly. In the Eemian, it's called climate amelioration for good reason.
Turns out climate science is much harder than "It's the CO2!"