I love to think about the fact that the graph for CO2 is like this
And we are literally in uncharted territory for how fucked shit will get and how quickly it will go, these types of carbon jumps usually take hundreds or thousands of years, not decades. At present we are about 1.3°C above the baseline 1850, and this will only continue to accelerate until we hit about 3-4°. We have triggered a feedback loop, which at this point seems to be irreversible. More carbon, more methane are inevitable even if we stop all output of these harmful gases at this very moment.
How was the data shown in this graph aggregated? How do you measure CO2 emission 500 000 years back?
When ice forms, it traps small airpockets in it, so we take samples of ice from the polar circles kilometres deep, date it, crush it to release the air pockets and measure the air contents. Then we can see how different the CO2 amounts were to now.
Source: there’s a fuck ton of different articles that talk about this, and this is the first one I found of Google, search yourself for more.
Its ice core data, this nature article describes it if you can access it somehow. “Air bubbles in ancient ice cores” is what NASA says
Maybe spend a few minutes googling this stuff because it’s been answered many times over and it just looks like you’re deliberately trying to poke holes in what is ultimately very well established scientific fact.
To give you a TLDR though it’s ice cores. You look at the air trapped in ice cores, the deeper you drill the further back in time you go because the ice and therefore the air trapped inside is older.
Its a simple question about an unsourced graph. Don’t you think you’re being a bit too adversarial?
Not everyone is here pushing an agenda, some people use the comments to talk to other people.
Thought the same. Trivial questions are asked and answered all the time (more trivial than this one too, where the question to enter into Google isn’t even that obvious). When it comes to politically loaded topics people always like to swing the downvote hammer.
And even if the question isn’t being asked in good faith, just dismissing it might feel like you’re showing them up, but someone who would be convinced by the bad faith question isn’t going to change their mind when they see a “just Google it, it’s so simple”.
And even for those that do search it, who knows what sources they end up looking at. “Oh, 9/10 oil execs say it’s actually ok while the 1/10 remaining just laugh when asked, so it must be ok! Oh and Fox News confirms it!” Buys another unnecessarily large truck.
To be honest, I probably am yes. Climate change as a political issue has been around for decades and there are many folks working hard to discredit the science so it’s very easy to assume the worst when people ask these kinds of questions.
It’s entirely possible that the commenter was being genuinely curious but those aren’t the vibes I got, maybe I’m just too jaded though.
Not sure why this is downvoted, it’s a fair question
What happens when we reached +3-4 degrees?
Well nothing really “happens”, but more trends we see now will continue and intensify. Think drought, extreme weather including flooding, harsh growing conditions in general. Fires, deforestation, loss of animal life in general, warmer oceans and rising seas.
Uhh not sure what else, theres a lot of questions on how our society will be able to respond to the changes to our understanding of the entire global landscape. Wars may be fought over resources like water. Immigrants fleeing from places now too hot/inhospitable to realistically make a life. How will we respond to life as we know it changing drastically in real time all around us?
If you want the scary answer, read about climate tipping points. I don’t think we’ve really established where they might be triggered but we more likely hit them the more over we get. These are hypothesized catastrophic and irreversible changes
im gonna have a warm place to live, not dead yet.
so far
It certainly was moist
