[gorpovitch]

It is interesting to keep these numbers in mind, but these facts are not sufficient to think correctly about climate.

The earth is a dynamic system, and the rate of temperature growth is as much, if not more, important than temperature average here. A car going from 100 to 0 kmph in 15 seconds is definitely not the same as a car going from 100 to 0 kmph in 0.1 seconds in terms of damage.

the temperature rises described in the article (e.g. during the eocene) are about a few degrees every few hundreds of thousands of years. Flore and fauna had time to evolve.

Today we are talking about 4 degrees in less than a hundred years. That's more than thousand times faster.

[dalmo3]

Without any knowledge in the field I wonder if the timescale difference could be attributed to the measurement methods used for the last centuries vs literal ages ago.

I.e. if we (or someone a million years from now) tried to estimate the 21th century's temperatures using the same techniques used to estimate temperatures a million years ago, would we be able to detect that 4 degree change?

Conversely, can scientists today detect or rule out that there was an outlier century a million years ago in which temps varied as much as today?

[pjc50]

I think they'd be able to spot the change, because the "step" would persist, but not tell you which century it happened in precisely.

Future archaeologists and ice core samplers would definitely find a "wtf" layer in all their ice cores: higher radioactivity! If they attempt carbon-dating there will be a huge discontinuity in the results.

Probably also a microplastics layer.

[have_faith]

> would we be able to detect that 4 degree change?

I'm far from an expert on this. Assumedly the damage we are seeing currently and expecting in the near future due to our current warming would be detecteble over a a very large time scale. We seem to be able to detect much more subtle changes going very far back with our current techniques.

[WithinReason]

This is a great question, and it seems that our methods can't detect temperature variation in past data that's similar to the recent rise. See the bottom answer:

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8746/is-thi...

[mlac]

To clarify, the method is not sufficient to detect a temperature variation within 100 years - current methods aren’t that specific with dates.

One could read your comment as “we haven’t detected temperature variation in past data that’s similar to the recent rise”, but what you are trying to say (and what the link says) is that we’ve seen the variation before, we just can’t tell exactly how quickly it happened.

[WithinReason]

No, our methods simply can't detect narrow spikes in past data:

"no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years"

This means if there was temperature variation in past data current methods couldn't detect it, so the absence of spikes in the data is not proof of absence. In other words, if global warming was reversed and 200 years from now temperatures went back to pre-industrial levels it would be undetectable 10000 years into the future with our current methods.

[pipodeclown]

Yes, but atmospheric co2 sticks around for 300-1000 years and the resulting temperature spike should therefore definitely be detecteable. They might not be able to pin point the exact period of 100 years we started to industrialise but it will definitely be able to see the change and determine that this took place over a timeline 100-1000 times shorter than previous similar changes.

Furthermore, there will be massive cooroborating evidence in the form of fossile records showing a mass extinction event and ice core samples (assuming we will still have icesheets) showing the accompanying rise in co2 levels as ice layers are deposited on a yearly basis.

[MichaelZuo]

Well that certainly gives a different spin to the various competing claims regarding global warming…