748
me_irl (discuss.online)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/me_irl@lemmy.world
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 5 days ago (1 child)

I'm sorry, but there is no way the first derivative of the atmospheric CO2 concentration with respect to time is faster now than when literally every forest on the planet was burned to ash within a the span of a few hours. I think you're misremembering a half-remembered headline you saw somewhere. A quick google search shows nothing remotely like what you're claiming. If you want to tell me the CO2 concentration is changing faster now than some other CO2-induced mass extinctions, sure, I could believe that. But the asteroid was a massive instantaneous event.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Listen I'm happy you're so confident, but you're wrong. A simple google search can clear this up for you.

    We are changing the temperature and co2 literally ten times faster than the asteroid.

    Sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you, lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    "Lol," said the confident fool.

    You have extremely poor reading comprehension. The articles you linked do not back up what you claim in the slightest. You don't seem to understand the difference between total change and rate of change. The relevant paragraph from the first article:

    Still, even the highest estimated Chicxulub-related CO2 emissions are less than the cumulative, ongoing emissions associated with man-made climate change. Those emissions, the researchers wrote, amount to about 2,000 gigatons of CO2 pumped into the sky since the year 1750. It almost goes without saying at this point that, due to a failure to take meaningful global climate action, man-made emissions are still increasing every year.

    So yes, the cumulative effect of centuries worth of CO2 emissions may be greater than the total CO2 released by the asteroid. But we're talking about rate of change, not total change. You're comparing centuries of cumulative CO2 emissions to emissions that were generated over a few hours.

    I believe you didn't even read the second article, as it is merely discussing how CO2 rates were higher during the time of the dinosaurs.

    Sorry, but you need to learn to read more carefully. Or at least gain an understanding of the difference between change and rate of change. For discussions of adaptation, rate of change is what matters.

    You're not just a fool, but a one with hubris.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child)

    Lmao. So. fucking. Confident.

    Climate scientists warn that over the next century, the rate of change will be 10 times faster than any climate pattern that unfolded in the last 65 million years.

    Over the last 60 years, the annual rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has been 100 times faster than the relatively recent natural increases that took place around 17,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. In 2021, the global average concentration of CO2 hit its highest recorded level of 414.72 ppm.

    “This is similar to the rate of change that occurred around 202 million years ago, after gigantic volcanic eruptions and also, after asteroid impacts that triggered the fifth mass extinction event around 66 million years ago,” Olsen added.

    “The rate of change that we are experiencing today because of human-driven greenhouse gas emissions is among the very highest that the Earth has ever seen,” said Olsen. “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are normal states for our planet. Our current lower state is unusual. Yet, it is this rate of change that is the most important.”

    Also check out The Fate of the World: A History and Future of the Climate Crisis by Bill McGuire. More recent and stark.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    None of those sentences back up your claims.

    Climate scientists warn that over the next century, the rate of change will be 10 times faster than any climate pattern that unfolded in the last 65 million years.

    This value was specifically chosen to exclude the dinosaur impact. Otherwise they would say a longer time period.

    Over the last 60 years, the annual rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has been 100 times faster than the relatively recent natural increases that took place around 17,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. In 2021, the global average concentration of CO2 hit its highest recorded level of 414.72 ppm.

    No mention of the dinosaur impact. Not sure why you copied this.

    “The rate of change that we are experiencing today because of human-driven greenhouse gas emissions is among the very highest that the Earth has ever seen,” said Olsen. “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are normal states for our planet. Our current lower state is unusual. Yet, it is this rate of change that is the most important.”

    This makes no claim comparing the present rate of change to the dinosaur impact. Not sure why you copied this.

    “This is similar to the rate of change that occurred around 202 million years ago, after gigantic volcanic eruptions and also, after asteroid impacts that triggered the fifth mass extinction event around 66 million years ago,” Olsen added.

    This is your strongest claim, but it's very vague. It cites no numbers and uses vague language like "similar."

    But really, this is a struggle on your part to grasp basic orders of magnitude. There is simply no physical way for our current CO2 emission rate to come remotely close to burning a substantial portion of a planet's entire biomass over the course of a few hours. We burn a lot of stuff, but no where near that much.

    But fine, if it's what it takes, I'll hold your hand and run some rough numbers for you. I'll cite all my sources and go through the math. Feel free to make your own case in a similar way.

    Global CO2 emissions right now are roughly 40 billion metric tons per year or 110 million tons per day.

    On the Earth's surface, the total plant biomass today is approximately 450 billion tons of carbon. Carbon dioxide is about 27% carbon, so 450 billion tons of carbon burned would produce 1,667 billion tons of CO2.

    I don't know if we have reliable figures of the plant biomass at the time of the impact. But it was almost certainly higher due to the higher pre-impact CO2 concentration then and the fact that humans weren't around paving things over. But for simplicity, let's say that it was the same number. This will help your case.

    Again for simplicity, let's assume that only half of the plant matter burned. Again, this helps your side. Maybe some got buried. We'll also ignore animals, fungi, and bacteria that also doubtlessly released billion of tons of CO2. Again, I'll be generous to your side. And while the conflagration mostly happened over a few hours, I'll be absurdly generous to you and assume it took an entire month. So 833 billion tons of CO2 released over 30 days. That comes to an emissions rate of 28 billion tons per day, a whole 250 times higher than our present emissions rate.

    So even using incredibly generous assumptions for your position, it's not even close. In reality the emissions rate after the impact was many thousands of times greater. Yes, our current total emissions may be greater than what the impact caused, but we're talking about rate of change.

    Can you show me your numbers? I've provided my actual numbers, please provide your own. Show me some proof that in the aftermath of the impact, the CO2 rate increased less than 110 million tons per day. Can you walk me through your numbers, like I did mine?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent