Recent comments in /f/science

Cleistheknees t1_j7oibty wrote

Well, as I’ve already said to the other person who said the same thing, it was a typo on my part exchanging “flowering plants” for “asterids”.

However, you should actually read the article you cited, because neither it nor the academic article it references present any evidence whatsoever of plants 140mya with morphology similar to what we call flowers. It is entirely a theoretical exercise.

1

PicardTangoAlpha t1_j7ogh0w wrote

>that structurally complex, modern-type rainforests may have been around as early as 80 million years ago.

Flowering plants arose at least as far back as 140 MA, the article's point is that such woody vines were around prior to the dinosaur's extinction.

1

grundar t1_j7o8ly9 wrote

> > the International Energy Agency projects carbon emissions will fall 15-20% by 2030.
>
> I don't care why it's happening, I do care that it's not happening anywhere near fast enough...

...fast enough for what, exactly?

A 15-20% emissions reduction by 2030 puts us on the second-lowest IPCC pathway which is estimated to result in 1.8C of warming by 2100 (+0.6C above today), in line with Climate Action Tracker's estimate.

So we're certainly not on track for holding warming to 1.5C; however, we are on track for holding warming below 2C, which is a better outcome than I expected even just 5 years ago, and is far better than Climate Action Tracker's most optimistic projection from 5 years ago.

It's not perfect, but it's substantial progress, so I'll take that as a good starting point.

2

Cleistheknees t1_j7o11id wrote

That is correct. The second “flowering plants” was a typo on my part, and should have been asterids. That said, I could still certainly be outdated on my understanding of the advent of asterids. To my knowledge the oldest specimens are dated to the Coniacian.

2