3 ms·

Does anyone else feel that the understanding of historic levels of atmospheric carbon are based on an set of assumptions that are bordering on farcical in the

by Andys 5y ago

Does anyone else feel that the understanding of historic levels of atmospheric carbon are based on an set of assumptions that are bordering on farcical in the amount of guesswork they require?

gengelbro 5y ago
drukenemo 5y ago
Yes, I do too. But I also think that’s true for a lot in science. But try and dare scientific “discoveries” in most circles… I guess it’s also the media’s fault, which cannot properly report on scientific papers. For example, probabilities become factual statements. Because it sells better like this.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  How do you account for science making accurate predictions about reality?
- gspr 5y ago
  Care to make an accurate, precise critique? Because that's the kind that makes science tick, and the type that scientists take seriously.
wolverine876 5y ago
Are you serious? Why do you think that?
whatever1 5y ago
A “feeling” does not cut it. I can assure you that when these theories were put into the test, they were challenged, again and again, and yet they are still standing. So you need to bring something more on the table rather than just a “feeling”. Go do the work required to disprove the scientific consensus.
tsimionescu 5y ago
You do know that atmospheric carbon level estimation is completely orthogonal to carbon dating, yes? Carbon dating is about matching radioactive carbon contents in organic matter to samples from trees or other known-age organic matter. As such, it has a limit of ~50,000 years ago. Historic levels of atmospheric CO2 is mainly based on samples of gas trapped in ice sheets, or estimates based on carbon quantity in mineral sediments that would have absorbed atmospheric carbon in their formation. As such, estimates go back to the entire history of the Earth. Especially for recent history, where we have bubbles of air from those times still trapped in Antarctic ice, I see this is a remarkably direct measurement, the very opposite of a "farcical amount of guesswork". If we're talking about 1 billion years ago, I start to agree with you a little more.
- seniorivn 5y ago
  but what if there was a time when the ice in Antarctica melt? wouldn't it mean that we don't know when and how long it happened and anything about it's atmospheric contents
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    The temperatures required to melt the ice in a short timespan, and then the temperatures required to re-freeze it in a short timespan after that, would leave marks in other places in the world as well. We also know for sure that such extreme events have not happened in recorded history, so at the very least you can trust the method for atmospheric carbon content in the last few thousand years - more than enough to prove man-made as the only explanation of these carbon levels, and to compare for climate effects.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
LorenPechtel 5y ago
Guesswork? Atmospheric carbon levels are irrelevant to this. C14 date calibration is about the *ratio* of C14 to C12 and C13, not the absolute quantity. Biological processes to not meaningfully select between the isotopes of carbon, anything that grows while exposed to the atmosphere will contain carbon in the same ratio as the atmosphere--but over time the C14 decays, the ratio shifts. That tells you how long since it grew. (Note the "exposed to the atmosphere" provision--one of the arguments the creationists love is to cite some examples of living organisms that date old. They didn't run the test for giggles, but rather to examine the environment in which the organism was found. Pull something out of a deep cave, date it and you now know how fast the air is exchanged between that location and surface atmosphere. This is because virtually all C14 is created by high energy particles hitting the upper atmosphere.)
Andys 5y ago
Thanks for the answers, everyone. It was an innocent question, but it seems to have angered people.

by Andys 5y ago

Does anyone else feel that the understanding of historic levels of atmospheric carbon are based on an set of assumptions that are bordering on farcical in the amount of guesswork they require?

gengelbro 5y ago

drukenemo 5y ago

Yes, I do too. But I also think that’s true for a lot in science. But try and dare scientific “discoveries” in most circles… I guess it’s also the media’s fault, which cannot properly report on scientific papers. For example, probabilities become factual statements. Because it sells better like this.

wolverine876 5y ago
How do you account for science making accurate predictions about reality?
gspr 5y ago
Care to make an accurate, precise critique? Because that's the kind that makes science tick, and the type that scientists take seriously.

wolverine876 5y ago

Are you serious? Why do you think that?

whatever1 5y ago

A “feeling” does not cut it. I can assure you that when these theories were put into the test, they were challenged, again and again, and yet they are still standing. So you need to bring something more on the table rather than just a “feeling”. Go do the work required to disprove the scientific consensus.

tsimionescu 5y ago

You do know that atmospheric carbon level estimation is completely orthogonal to carbon dating, yes? Carbon dating is about matching radioactive carbon contents in organic matter to samples from trees or other known-age organic matter. As such, it has a limit of ~50,000 years ago. Historic levels of atmospheric CO2 is mainly based on samples of gas trapped in ice sheets, or estimates based on carbon quantity in mineral sediments that would have absorbed atmospheric carbon in their formation. As such, estimates go back to the entire history of the Earth. Especially for recent history, where we have bubbles of air from those times still trapped in Antarctic ice, I see this is a remarkably direct measurement, the very opposite of a "farcical amount of guesswork". If we're talking about 1 billion years ago, I start to agree with you a little more.

seniorivn 5y ago
but what if there was a time when the ice in Antarctica melt? wouldn't it mean that we don't know when and how long it happened and anything about it's atmospheric contents
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  The temperatures required to melt the ice in a short timespan, and then the temperatures required to re-freeze it in a short timespan after that, would leave marks in other places in the world as well. We also know for sure that such extreme events have not happened in recorded history, so at the very least you can trust the method for atmospheric carbon content in the last few thousand years - more than enough to prove man-made as the only explanation of these carbon levels, and to compare for climate effects.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

LorenPechtel 5y ago

Guesswork? Atmospheric carbon levels are irrelevant to this. C14 date calibration is about the *ratio* of C14 to C12 and C13, not the absolute quantity. Biological processes to not meaningfully select between the isotopes of carbon, anything that grows while exposed to the atmosphere will contain carbon in the same ratio as the atmosphere--but over time the C14 decays, the ratio shifts. That tells you how long since it grew. (Note the "exposed to the atmosphere" provision--one of the arguments the creationists love is to cite some examples of living organisms that date old. They didn't run the test for giggles, but rather to examine the environment in which the organism was found. Pull something out of a deep cave, date it and you now know how fast the air is exchanged between that location and surface atmosphere. This is because virtually all C14 is created by high energy particles hitting the upper atmosphere.)

Andys 5y ago

Thanks for the answers, everyone. It was an innocent question, but it seems to have angered people.