Earth’s carbon dioxide levels reach highest point in 800,000 years

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8590664-earth-s-carbon-dioxide-levels-reach-highest-point-in-800-000-years/

by lisper • 8 years ago

149 88 8 years ago

Pilfer6• 8 years ago

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1...

On a geologic timescale, CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today.

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.

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 returning to normal, not going away from it.

lifeformed• 8 years ago

But it's just talking about the past 800,000 years.

Diederich2• 8 years ago

Can you expand on that?

Ancalagon• 8 years ago

No, the article says the CO2 levels are at their highest in the last 800,000 years. Its literally right there in the title of the post.

tim3334• 8 years ago

Yeah but Pilfer's point is the levels in the last 800,000 years are abnormally low in the last 200 million year period.

nixpulvis3• 8 years ago

From the same site:

All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Pilfer6• 8 years ago

Fair, but that doesn't detract from the point that CO2 levels maintained 1000-2000ppm for over 100 million years. This was during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, when life was thriving on earth.

Present CO2 levels are low on a geological timescale.

pharrington3• 8 years ago

Yes, the Cambrian explosion indeed was an even wilder change in environment and ecosystem than what we're going through now. A hypothetical human time traveler, however, wouldn't survive a hypothetical time travel back to that.

Pilfer6• 8 years ago

A hypothetical human time traveler, however, wouldn't survive a hypothetical time travel back to [the Cambrian explosion].

I assume you are referencing about CO2 levels. Yes, around ~500 million years ago, CO2 levels reached 10,000ppm, which would be hazardous (but not fatal) to a human traveler. However if you pick a point between 300 million years ago and today, when CO2 levels were at 1000-2000ppm, a human traveler would have no problem surviving in that environment. Heck, it is even possible to hit those CO2 levels in a modern day warehouse or office that is poorly ventilated.

Increased CO2 levels are very survivable and do not mean the end of the human race.

eloff3• 8 years ago

The article talks about this being the highest point in the last 800K years, but you're right that geologically speaking the levels are quite low for our planet.

The problem is life takes a long time to adapt, including us silly humans who build our cities on the coast. Just because CO2 levels have been higher before does mean the process will be a pleasant one.

It may well involve the extinction of large numbers of species, and large numbers of humans (never all humans as some people seem to be fond of saying.) It could even possibly trigger collapse of civilization in extreme enough scenarios where methane from the oceans and tundras is released in a feedback loop.

So yeah, you're factually correct, but missing the point.

thaumaturgy4• 8 years ago

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's thought of something nobody else has.

The question isn't whether Earth will survive these CO2 levels. Earth will (probably) be just fine. It'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.

The question isn't necessarily even whether humans will survive much higher CO2 levels. We're resourceful, we have the ability to shape our environment. Some people will survive.

The question is how much we'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.

Nobody is going to get out of this unscathed. It'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's going to cause enough suffering in enough other parts of our globally interconnected human society that you'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?

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-ha...

Pilfer6• 8 years ago

It'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.

This isn't common knowledge at all 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't they inform the general public of this? Take the submitted article for example. Instead of publishing an article stating, "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" 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't scientists informing the public of the historical data?

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.

The question isn't whether [X], it's whether [Y].

I am paraphrasing, but that'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.

Edit: I don't want to reply to several comments, so I'll respond here.

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?

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.

TangoTrotFox• 8 years ago

I think your framing of the question is very fair and absolutely how the topic should be considered. But at the same time, I think you're assuming much more from the average person than is realistic when you state that whether Earth (and implicitly humanity) will survive or not, is not the question. People are becoming radicalized in everything. And radicalism tends to be intrinsically connected with ignorance.

See the top of this thread (well currently at least) for a line of discussion where somebody not only thinks climate will imminently lead to earth becoming uninhabitable but wondering how and where people could survive [away from Earth] until the planet does become habitable again. Or consider the fact that the comment you're responding to, though factually accurate and contextually relevant, is being downvoted for stating facts that mitigate this sort of hysteria. Sure, it's a sample of one - but I'm sure a survey of the views in this thread will show the question is indeed far more elementary than the nuanced and accurate view you're discussing!

mikeash• 8 years ago

If I’m interested in the survival of human civilization, which has been around for less than 10,000 years, how is it useful to consider that CO2 levels were much higher 200 million years ago?

tim3334• 8 years ago

I think that's true although it's also true that rapidly increasing CO2 now seems a dangerous experiment with our only planet.

As an aside noting the downvotes on the above comment I sometimes question if that stuff is a good idea. I can see the point that mentioning high CO2 levels may not be a problem could be dangerous as the masses will keep burning CO2 but trying to drum up panic isn't working that great as illustrated by the "highest point in 800,000 years" thing. From an engineering kind of view point I feel you should look at things as neutrally as possible though I guess from a political view point maybe not.

graeme4• 8 years ago

I thought this bit was interesting:

"As a scientist, what concerns me the most is not that we have passed yet another round-number threshold but what this continued rise actually means: that we are continuing full speed ahead with an unprecedented experiment with our planet, the only home we have," Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, tweeted Thursday"

We really are going ahead full speed. Global emissions have been rising in recent years, not falling.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 8 years ago

And even countries like Germany who say they take climate change seriously are revising their CO2 goals because they are having trouble meeting them due to their abandonment of nuclear power. https://euobserver.com/environment/140475

At this point if you are opposing nuclear power, you aren't taking climate change seriously, even if you say you are.

abenedic• 8 years ago

I have a feeling that one of the biggest blockers to actually doing something about climate change is how easily the conversation gets derailed. Almost everyone agrees on clean energy, but once you get into specifics people lose their cohesion(people are pro- or anti-nuclear power, or for or against wind energy(birds, off-peak power, etc.)).

I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't.

I have heard for years, and at various times expounded myself, of the virtues of nuclear. But the public in most industrialized countries cannot stand the thought of it near them, so looking at a more balanced approach makes sense.

jamesblonde• 8 years ago

The debate is not about nuclear power. Whether we keep existing reactors or not is not going to have a significant effect on future greenhouse gas levels. Very few new nuclear power stations are being built globally, so it won't be part of the solution. I agree that it could be - if we were really worried, as we should be. Realistically, we just need the US on board. Then things will change. But a decisive majority of the US population is in a strange anti-science place these days, and the world's future rests on their shoulders. That's a scary thought...

blueprint3• 8 years ago

Those plants have to be built, but we don't have time for that anyway. Now we must focus very closely on self-preservation. But how many people have the means to leave Earth and survive apart from it for however long it will take for Earth to return to habitability? Moreover, how can I find people who are able to work on that specific problem without convincing themselves it's not their personal responsibility and subsequently forgetting themselves?

kaybe3• 8 years ago

The difference of not using nuclear power in Germany is less than 1% of the planned 40% reduction, even if we assume that only the worst coal plants are used to substitute. This is a larger problem, sadly. (That said, by now I'm all for keeping the nuclear plants running a few years longer, but that is not enough by far.)

nnain• 8 years ago

Solar is a great solution for so many countries! In India, unfortunately, the governments audacious energy generation announcements for 2020 seem to be getting slowed down by its own bureaucratic hurdles (and possibly lobbying by big Energy corps).

Given the lower ppp of Indian consumers, the Solar panels still aren't cheap enough (add to it the cost of wiring/batteries/accessories) and the government isn't providing enough subsidy (especially on imports). I can only hope that some Silicon Wafer manufacturing lands in India soon; otherwise the Energy transition will take forever.

blueprint3• 8 years ago

Global emissions have been rising in recent years, not falling.

It's been said that (a) every living creature is influenced by environment, and (b) humans tend to do things harmful to themselves near an "end".

shmerl3• 8 years ago

Is there a way to build a closed loop system that would suck CO2 and make methane from it for example? Methane can be used for further energy production but again with closed loop, capturing all produced CO2.

fulafel• 8 years ago

Plants and algae convert co2 to hydrocarbons such as starch and cellulose, which can be used as fuel or further refined into biogases, ethanol, or biodiesel etc. Industrial processes also exist and can be solar powered , but probably are less efficient.

ars3• 8 years ago

and make methane from it

That part's easy. Where's your energy source?

The whole issue is not Co2, it's energy.

shmerl3• 8 years ago

That part's easy. Where's your energy source?

Solar + methane itself fed back into the loop.

rlkf• 8 years ago

Garbage incinerators with CO2 capture and geological storage; that is a net CO2-negative process, and you can recover energy in the form of domestic heating, too. This is not a fantasy technology; everything needed to do this already exists and can be purchased. An extra bonus is that you also vastly reduce the pollution problems associated with landfills.

ahakki• 8 years ago

VW is currently working on this through the Audi eFuels programm. The goal is the synthesis of disel and gasolene from atmospheric CO2. iirc they have recently produced 60l of synthetic gasolene for testing purposes.

tim3334• 8 years ago

A company called Algenol was researching CO2 -> ethanol using algae and I thought it might be the answer but they seem to have kind of given up for now. It worked but not cost effectively. There's a bit of a post mortem here https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lessons-from-th...

chillacy• 8 years ago

It's a topic of active research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas

Efficiency is a problem though. With all the steps involved, the laws of thermodynamics become very punishing.

rocky1138• 8 years ago

On an unrelated note, I'm impressed that the Waterloo Record's webiste is surviving the HN hug.

digitalsushi2• 8 years ago

the only thing that stresses me out more than the story, is the likelihood that someone very smart is working on something that will take 99% of us all out in a last ditch effort to save the planet.

timb072• 8 years ago

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xwvgeq/an-incompl...

digitalsushi2• 8 years ago

That is haunting.

anonoholic• 8 years ago

And that, sadly, as a last ditch effort, would be a very good thing for humanity, but probably not for the planet.

Brockenstein2• 8 years ago

If I know anything about humans it's that a "last ditch, requires 99% participation in an all out effort" isn't doable. 99% of people can't agree on anything especially if the results aren't immediate and miraculous.

xupybd• 8 years ago

Do we have a good grasp on what that means? I'm not trying to deny climate change but if I'm honest I don't know what it means for the carbon dioxide levels to by the highest in 800,000 years.

Is the temperature response linear?

Are there other dangers involved in changing the composition of our atmosphere?

Is the response likely to self regulate or avalanche out of control?

Is being the highest in 800,000 actually a significant point or is it just a bad sign?

shusson• 8 years ago

My concern is that we are experimenting with a precious and unique system.

zaarn3• 8 years ago

Answers in order:

We dont' know. 5 times.

The rapid and huge increase in CO2 is to my knowledge unprecedented. We did have similar CO2 levels in the past but never in such a rapid incline, only after thousands if not millions of years time for everything else to respond.

We could be causing a The-Day-After-Tomorrow-Scenario. Or something like 2012.

Or Mad Max. We simply don't know but considering the parts we do know, it's likely that whatever happens is not good. A 400ppm Level of CO2 was considered a symbolic point of no return and we have passed it a while ago.

Earth’s carbon dioxide levels reach highest point in 800,000 years

Related Stories