11,000 scientists can't be wrong

[Bikenut]

I don’t think that 10, 20, or even 100 years is enough to determine a long term trend when it comes to something like this. Which is why I doubt any climate change is caused by humans. We need to look at several hundred or a thousand years of data.

I agree the small sample of data we have at this time is completely insufficient to allow any definitive conclusions.

Considering the earth's temperature swings over periods of millions of years even a thousand years of data might only show a warming, or cooling, trend leading into the next tropical, or ice, age.

[since9]

Plant more trees!

Both I and the guy in the video below agree with you. In fact, let's allow most forested acreage age back into mature old-growth stands. Not only are trees efficient and effective scavengers of CO2, but they provide cover for dense undergrowth which is even more effective at scavenging CO2, not to mention safeguarding biodiversity...

Yes, that's somewhat of a pipe dream. Here's why:

Nearly all coal was created around the same period of time, roughly 350 mya, between the evolution of lignins which gave rise to woody plants and the later evolution of bacteria and fungi capable of decomposing lignins. Ever since then, much of the carbon sequestered by trees is rather quickly released back into the ecosystem by bacterial decomposition.

In fact, coal formation corresponds to the dramatic reduction in CO2 from > 2,000 ppmV in the late Devonian Period roughly 370 mya down to near modern levels in the late Carboniferous Period roughly 300 mya.

Alas, while rain forests don't burn much, trees in drier and windy areas are likely to return much of their CO2, not to mention carbon in the form of soot, back to the atmosphere every time they catch fire.

[since9]

I don’t think that 10, 20, or even 100 years is enough to determine a long term trend when it comes to something like this. Which is why I doubt any climate change is caused by humans. We need to look at several hundred or a thousand years of data.

I concur. In fact, let's examine 420,000 years of data:

[since9]

I don’t think that 10, 20, or even 100 years is enough to determine a long term trend when it comes to something like this. Which is why I doubt any climate change is caused by humans. We need to look at several hundred or a thousand years of data.

Better yet, let's simultaneously examine 4.6 billion years of data:

[since9]

This subject is front and center with the NSC and DoD because they have figured out that they will be the ones doing the bleeding while the rest of America is enjoying the new beaches.

I see. Were you aware, Nix, that sea level rise has been occurring since the last glacial maximum about 21,000 years ago, or that it occurred at a far faster rate than it has been since approximately 7,500 years ago?

Are you aware that the current rate remains even with the rate over the last 7,500 years and far below the mean rate between 11,000 and 8,000 years ago?

Hmm...

If the facts as gleaned by science itself can't put things back into their proper and objective perspective, nothing can and we're all doomed to remain victims of media sensationalism and the very dark trend of scientific collaboration with media to generate government research dollars earmarked as much for boats and backyard swimming pools as for anything having to do with science.

[Nix]

So your conclusion after looking at that chart is that the remaining ice caps won't melt as temperatures continue to rise?

(And are you aware that sea level rise is now accelerating?)

[zonker1986]

[LimaCharlie]

Blaming mankind on Earth's climate change or believing mankind can significantly alter the Earth's future climate is the height of silliness. A extremely miniscule change in the sun's output will affect the climate a thousand fold more. A miniscule change in the Earth's tilt will significantly affect the climate. A miniscule change in the earth's orbit will significantly change the climate. A miniscule change in the moon's orbit will significantly change the climate. The Earth has gone through ice ages and hot-house periods for millions of years before mankind arrived and will go through many more for millions of years after mankind disappears. Mankind is just a small blip in history.

[Nix]

Mankind is just a small blip in history.

I can't argue with that.

[gasmitty]

I don't see the room for doubt. The science is 150 years-old and tested. The predictions are fairly accurate, +/- a smidge. The evidence mounts day by day. It doesn't take 11,000 scientists to figure this out, high school kids can learn it in a day.



NOAA data

I think a more appropriate time scale would be 5000-10,000 years, not 70. And a logarithmic scale for the Y axis would also make more sense and put things into perspective.

The "man-made" contribution to climate change is debatable. Clearly humans have contributed, but whether that contribution is directly relatable to any climatic changes is conjecture, not absolute fact. Also understand that while we can measure today's greenhouse gases with pretty good accuracy, trying to reconstitute comparable data for what happened 50 years ago much less 1000 years ago is spitballing. Even carbon dating is suspect since we can't accurately assess the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at any given time.

Lastly, the thread title reminds me of some bathroom stall wisdom from my college days: "eat poop, 10 trillion flies can't ALL be wrong." I've been described as a "scientist" over the years although "engineer" is a better description. Yet among my fellow scientists I can easily see them agreeing to a notion that "commercial air travel is unsafe" while simultaneously agreeing that pedestrian street crossings are far less safe in comparison.

Take what you read with at least 10E6 grains of salt.

[Nix]

I think a more appropriate time scale would be 5000-10,000 years, not 70. And a logarithmic scale for the Y axis would also make more sense and put things into perspective.

Here's your 10,000 years of CO2, although most of that is extrapolated data, not measured:

[gasmitty]

And therein lies a problem. Without unshakeable knowledge of atmospheric carbon content over the millennia, those data are a wild guess and nothing more.

The historical belief behind carbon dating and anything related to a measurement of carbon (e.g. CO2) was an assumption of fairly constant level of carbon in the atmosphere, which has turned out to be a huge fallacy. Popular "science" is slow to acknowledge that fact and its ramifications.

[Nix]

And the temperature estimations:

[Nix]

And therein lies a problem. Without unshakeable knowledge of atmospheric carbon content over the millennia, those data are a wild guess and nothing more.

The historical belief behind carbon dating and anything related to a measurement of carbon (e.g. CO2) was an assumption of fairly constant level of carbon in the atmosphere, which has turned out to be a huge fallacy. Popular "science" is slow to acknowledge that fact and its ramifications.

I think the methods to assay historic CO2 levels should be questioned, but they have been peer reviewed and deemed to be useful. And I'm not sure we have anything better to go on.

Just ignore the data we have and hope it all works out?

[gasmitty]

I think the methods to assay historic CO2 levels should be questioned, but they have been peer reviewed and deemed to be useful. And I'm not sure we have anything better to go on.

Just ignore the data we have and hope it all works out?

"Peer reviewed" means little, short of scrutiny bordering on the level of a Supreme Court decision. A "peer review" by the JAMA would have me laughing because of their politics and ideology.

Ignoring the data we have isn't all that bad an idea because the data from 50 years or more ago is highly suspect. Taking positive steps such as eliminating chlorinated fluorocarbons is a move in the right direction as it's based on immutable evidence re their harm to the ozone layer. Conversely, tax incentives for all-electric vehicles is woefully misguided because a) recharging those batteries relies largely on fossil-fueled power plants, and b) the life-cycle economic costs ignore the disposal costs of toxic lithium-based battery packs.

Bottom line: it's OK to be concerned about "climate change," but be VERY careful about what you wish for as a "cure." And make sure all the players (think China and India) are on board with your recommendations/mandates.