<story><title>Earth’s carbon dioxide levels reach highest point in 800,000 years</title><url>https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8590664-earth-s-carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-in-800-000-years/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Pilfer</author><text>&amp;gt;It&amp;#x27;s common knowledge, especially among the scientists that publish claims about rising CO2 levels, that Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the past, and that at those times, there was lots of life.&lt;p&gt;This isn&amp;#x27;t common knowledge &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt; among non-scientists. Most people have no clue that CO2 levels were many times higher than today, and that earth and the ecosystem in general were just fine. Scientists may be aware of this fact, but why don&amp;#x27;t they inform the general public of this? Take the submitted article for example. Instead of publishing an article stating, &amp;quot;CO2 levels are higher than 800,000 years ago; but are likely lower than they were at any point from 20-200 million years ago&amp;quot; they only leave in the scary, doomsaying first part and neglect to inform the second part. It is the equivalent of looking at a 24 hour geological clock and only telling people about the past minute while neglecting datapoints from minutes or hours ago. Why aren&amp;#x27;t scientists informing the public of the historical data?&lt;p&gt;I understand why the climate change community may not want to bring up this point (it detracts from other issues) but people should be aware of this fact. Humanity, and life in general, will survive increased CO2 levels.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;The question isn&amp;#x27;t whether [X], it&amp;#x27;s whether [Y].&lt;p&gt;I am paraphrasing, but that&amp;#x27;s largely what your comment is saying. The article premise and its title, is about [X], where [X] is CO2 levels. It seems like the response to historical CO2 levels is to change the topic.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Edit: I don&amp;#x27;t want to reply to several comments, so I&amp;#x27;ll respond here.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why do I believe the discussion should inform people about historical CO2 levels? Largely because I firmly believe CO2 emissions will not decrease through 2040. The incentives to cut emissions are just not there. Petroleum is simply too useful as a resource. The current projections I have seen predict 500ppm by 2050, and likely 600ppm by 2100. Given those numbers, I ask myself the question, how likely is it that humanity will face extinction in the next century? How should I interpret these numbers?&lt;p&gt;Given the geological data, I find it reassuring that biology and life on earth survived for hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels between 1000-2000ppm. It means that increased CO2 levels will not cause the extinction of humanity.</text></item><item><author>thaumaturgy</author><text>Okay, this comes up sometimes in climate-related topics, usually because of a combination of misunderstanding and a need to be the clever contrarian that&amp;#x27;s thought of something nobody else has.&lt;p&gt;The question isn&amp;#x27;t whether Earth will survive these CO2 levels. Earth will (probably) be just fine. It&amp;#x27;s common knowledge, especially among the scientists that publish claims about rising CO2 levels, that Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the past, and that at those times, there was lots of life.&lt;p&gt;The question isn&amp;#x27;t necessarily even whether humans will survive much higher CO2 levels. We&amp;#x27;re resourceful, we have the ability to shape our environment. Some people will survive.&lt;p&gt;The question is how much we&amp;#x27;re going to enjoy all of the adverse effects of this global climate change. It is going to cause or contribute to a lot of natural disasters: hurricanes, tornadoes, extreme storms, droughts, flooding, massive wildfires. There are going to be migrations. Wars. There are some solid arguments that climate change contributed to the Syrian civil war [1]. Many species are going to disappear as they fail to adapt quickly enough to the changing environment; it will take much longer for new species to take their place. We will see, for example, an environment with fewer butterflies and more mosquitoes -- many more.&lt;p&gt;Nobody is going to get out of this unscathed. It&amp;#x27;s going to cause widespread political and economic instability and unrest. Even if you manage to find yourself a nice little spot untouched by the most direct effects of climate change, it&amp;#x27;s going to cause enough suffering in enough other parts of our globally interconnected human society that you&amp;#x27;ll see the costs somewhere. The US spent a record $306 billion on disaster response last year. Where do you think that money comes from?&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;climate-change-ha...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Pilfer</author><text>&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;earthguide.ucsd.edu&amp;#x2F;virtualmuseum&amp;#x2F;climatechange2&amp;#x2F;07_1.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;earthguide.ucsd.edu&amp;#x2F;virtualmuseum&amp;#x2F;climatechange2&amp;#x2F;07_1...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;On a geologic timescale, CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.&lt;p&gt;CO2 levels over the past ~5 million years are at the lowest point in over 200 million years. On a geological timescale, CO2 levels are &lt;i&gt;returning&lt;/i&gt; to normal, not going away from it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gameswithgo</author><text>&amp;gt;. Humanity, and life in general, will survive increased CO2 levels.&lt;p&gt;In the few past instances when temperatures increased &lt;i&gt;this fast&lt;/i&gt; there were mass extinction events.&lt;p&gt;Yes, life can exist on a warmer earth just fine. But rapid change kills a lot of things.&lt;p&gt;Scientists don&amp;#x27;t focus on informing people that the earth used to be much warmer and it was fine, because they are focusing on the fact that rapid change is dangerous.</text></comment>
<story><title>Earth’s carbon dioxide levels reach highest point in 800,000 years</title><url>https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8590664-earth-s-carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-in-800-000-years/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Pilfer</author><text>&amp;gt;It&amp;#x27;s common knowledge, especially among the scientists that publish claims about rising CO2 levels, that Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the past, and that at those times, there was lots of life.&lt;p&gt;This isn&amp;#x27;t common knowledge &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt; among non-scientists. Most people have no clue that CO2 levels were many times higher than today, and that earth and the ecosystem in general were just fine. Scientists may be aware of this fact, but why don&amp;#x27;t they inform the general public of this? Take the submitted article for example. Instead of publishing an article stating, &amp;quot;CO2 levels are higher than 800,000 years ago; but are likely lower than they were at any point from 20-200 million years ago&amp;quot; they only leave in the scary, doomsaying first part and neglect to inform the second part. It is the equivalent of looking at a 24 hour geological clock and only telling people about the past minute while neglecting datapoints from minutes or hours ago. Why aren&amp;#x27;t scientists informing the public of the historical data?&lt;p&gt;I understand why the climate change community may not want to bring up this point (it detracts from other issues) but people should be aware of this fact. Humanity, and life in general, will survive increased CO2 levels.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;The question isn&amp;#x27;t whether [X], it&amp;#x27;s whether [Y].&lt;p&gt;I am paraphrasing, but that&amp;#x27;s largely what your comment is saying. The article premise and its title, is about [X], where [X] is CO2 levels. It seems like the response to historical CO2 levels is to change the topic.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Edit: I don&amp;#x27;t want to reply to several comments, so I&amp;#x27;ll respond here.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why do I believe the discussion should inform people about historical CO2 levels? Largely because I firmly believe CO2 emissions will not decrease through 2040. The incentives to cut emissions are just not there. Petroleum is simply too useful as a resource. The current projections I have seen predict 500ppm by 2050, and likely 600ppm by 2100. Given those numbers, I ask myself the question, how likely is it that humanity will face extinction in the next century? How should I interpret these numbers?&lt;p&gt;Given the geological data, I find it reassuring that biology and life on earth survived for hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels between 1000-2000ppm. It means that increased CO2 levels will not cause the extinction of humanity.</text></item><item><author>thaumaturgy</author><text>Okay, this comes up sometimes in climate-related topics, usually because of a combination of misunderstanding and a need to be the clever contrarian that&amp;#x27;s thought of something nobody else has.&lt;p&gt;The question isn&amp;#x27;t whether Earth will survive these CO2 levels. Earth will (probably) be just fine. It&amp;#x27;s common knowledge, especially among the scientists that publish claims about rising CO2 levels, that Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the past, and that at those times, there was lots of life.&lt;p&gt;The question isn&amp;#x27;t necessarily even whether humans will survive much higher CO2 levels. We&amp;#x27;re resourceful, we have the ability to shape our environment. Some people will survive.&lt;p&gt;The question is how much we&amp;#x27;re going to enjoy all of the adverse effects of this global climate change. It is going to cause or contribute to a lot of natural disasters: hurricanes, tornadoes, extreme storms, droughts, flooding, massive wildfires. There are going to be migrations. Wars. There are some solid arguments that climate change contributed to the Syrian civil war [1]. Many species are going to disappear as they fail to adapt quickly enough to the changing environment; it will take much longer for new species to take their place. We will see, for example, an environment with fewer butterflies and more mosquitoes -- many more.&lt;p&gt;Nobody is going to get out of this unscathed. It&amp;#x27;s going to cause widespread political and economic instability and unrest. Even if you manage to find yourself a nice little spot untouched by the most direct effects of climate change, it&amp;#x27;s going to cause enough suffering in enough other parts of our globally interconnected human society that you&amp;#x27;ll see the costs somewhere. The US spent a record $306 billion on disaster response last year. Where do you think that money comes from?&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;climate-change-ha...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Pilfer</author><text>&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;earthguide.ucsd.edu&amp;#x2F;virtualmuseum&amp;#x2F;climatechange2&amp;#x2F;07_1.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;earthguide.ucsd.edu&amp;#x2F;virtualmuseum&amp;#x2F;climatechange2&amp;#x2F;07_1...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;On a geologic timescale, CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.&lt;p&gt;CO2 levels over the past ~5 million years are at the lowest point in over 200 million years. On a geological timescale, CO2 levels are &lt;i&gt;returning&lt;/i&gt; to normal, not going away from it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Jweb_Guru</author><text>The sun is also measurably brighter and hotter than it was when CO2 levels were significantly higher, meaning we should expect greenhouse effects to be more severe.  CO2 levels aren&amp;#x27;t the only thing that contribute to climate.  Additionally, while in the past the levels have been much higher, the &lt;i&gt;rate&lt;/i&gt; of change in CO2 levels was never nearly this swift in the geological record--it&amp;#x27;s the sudden change that has many people worried.</text></comment>