3 ms·

My only problem is that the planet is over 4 billion years old and as this shows, we've been collecting climate data for a little over 100 years. The natural sk

by thadd 11y ago

My only problem is that the planet is over 4 billion years old and as this shows, we've been collecting climate data for a little over 100 years. The natural skeptic in me isn't ok with establishing a trend based on 1/40,000,000 of the available data, the sample size is simply too small. Am I completely off-base with this?

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Its actually irrelevant whether this has happened before. Its happening now, impacting us, and maybe we can do something about it. The Pollyanna approach "Its natural" doesn't help us when cities are going underwater.
- DougWebb 11y ago
  Maybe we can do something, but what? Do we build walls around the cities so they don't flood, or do we set up a scheme where developing countries pay a ransom to rich countries so they can continue to pollute, while rich countries starve their poor citizens of affordable energy while funnelling tax money into companies owned by rich citizens to do R&D work on energy sources that won't be viable on a large scale for decades, if ever? I'm all for the walls, but the money that drives governments don't seem to agree.
  - Aloha 11y ago
    The issue that I have with the folks who advocate anthropogenic climate change is that near as I can tell there is no way to preserve the standard of living on the planet (feed, clothe, power, etc) and end climate change soon enough, the only way to get even a 50% cut of emissions within a decade is effectively managing to reduce the population of the planet by a similar number. I think we'd be better off figuring out how to cope with climate change and generally reduce our consumption of natural resources, rather than focusing to tightly on one evil (carbon).
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      ...and just let it continue. How convenient. Pretend nobody's responsible, and its inevitable, and just insulate your house and hunker down I guess.
Daishiman 11y ago
There's a wealth of indirect data that corresponds with many of these variables and they show a direct correlation with the data in question. Examples of this include ice core data, which has been gathered on multiple sites in the world, and the concentration of gases contained within is a really good indicator of how things were in the past. Another thing that can be used is tree ring data and other information from proxies. You can study the fossils of fauna and flora deposited over different locations and periods of time to get a good idea of the climate conditions in each place. An interesting correlated piece of data is examining human remains from people. Humans have been buried with foods at the time of their death, and the bones can help establish cause of death. If you go to Peru you can see that the food and living conditions of peoples during El Niño match the surrounding geological data very well. Glaciers are also interesting indicators of climate phenomena, since they form and melt under specific conditions.
FD3SA 11y ago
You are absolutely correct. It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this planet. Yet, the biosphere has always adapted and life continued. Assuming that mankind is destroying the biosphere at an unprecedented rate (we are), and burning hydrocarbons at an even faster rate (we are), are these two factors enough to turn the earth into a Mars-style wasteland, completely devoid of all life? Based on the data I`ve linked below, it just doesn't seem plausible. We can use linear regression models of the atmosphere and show temperatures rising until life becomes impossible, but that is not how complex biospheres work. In any case, climate science is definitely a worthy scientific discipline to study, but it is becoming akin to economics in the prediction department. As in, the principles are sound, but the predictions of the experts are laughably wrong on a regular basis, possibly due to the fierce politicization of this branch of science. 1. http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg 2. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.h...
moultano 11y ago
This has happened several times before, and killed much of the life on earth. In a bit of cosmic irony, the life that was killed in previous anoxic events is what turned into the fossil fuel we're burning today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Occurrence
- jonah 11y ago
  The BBC just posted this article[1]. Pretty good review of the Anoxic extinctions. [1]"The Devonian extinction saw the oceans choke to death" http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150624-the-day-the-oceans-died http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150624-the-day-the-oceans-d...
unabridged 11y ago
Exactly, we don't even know if a 2F degree rise over a 125 year period is statistically significant, in may well be within a one standard deviation. Also the global mean surface temperature has not been well defined during this time period, it has changed as stations close and new ones are added, and as new technology is introduced.

by thadd 11y ago

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Its actually irrelevant whether this has happened before. Its happening now, impacting us, and maybe we can do something about it. The Pollyanna approach "Its natural" doesn't help us when cities are going underwater.

DougWebb 11y ago
Maybe we can do something, but what? Do we build walls around the cities so they don't flood, or do we set up a scheme where developing countries pay a ransom to rich countries so they can continue to pollute, while rich countries starve their poor citizens of affordable energy while funnelling tax money into companies owned by rich citizens to do R&D work on energy sources that won't be viable on a large scale for decades, if ever? I'm all for the walls, but the money that drives governments don't seem to agree.
- Aloha 11y ago
  The issue that I have with the folks who advocate anthropogenic climate change is that near as I can tell there is no way to preserve the standard of living on the planet (feed, clothe, power, etc) and end climate change soon enough, the only way to get even a 50% cut of emissions within a decade is effectively managing to reduce the population of the planet by a similar number. I think we'd be better off figuring out how to cope with climate change and generally reduce our consumption of natural resources, rather than focusing to tightly on one evil (carbon).
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    ...and just let it continue. How convenient. Pretend nobody's responsible, and its inevitable, and just insulate your house and hunker down I guess.

Daishiman 11y ago

There's a wealth of indirect data that corresponds with many of these variables and they show a direct correlation with the data in question. Examples of this include ice core data, which has been gathered on multiple sites in the world, and the concentration of gases contained within is a really good indicator of how things were in the past. Another thing that can be used is tree ring data and other information from proxies. You can study the fossils of fauna and flora deposited over different locations and periods of time to get a good idea of the climate conditions in each place. An interesting correlated piece of data is examining human remains from people. Humans have been buried with foods at the time of their death, and the bones can help establish cause of death. If you go to Peru you can see that the food and living conditions of peoples during El Niño match the surrounding geological data very well. Glaciers are also interesting indicators of climate phenomena, since they form and melt under specific conditions.

FD3SA 11y ago

You are absolutely correct. It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this planet. Yet, the biosphere has always adapted and life continued. Assuming that mankind is destroying the biosphere at an unprecedented rate (we are), and burning hydrocarbons at an even faster rate (we are), are these two factors enough to turn the earth into a Mars-style wasteland, completely devoid of all life? Based on the data I`ve linked below, it just doesn't seem plausible. We can use linear regression models of the atmosphere and show temperatures rising until life becomes impossible, but that is not how complex biospheres work. In any case, climate science is definitely a worthy scientific discipline to study, but it is becoming akin to economics in the prediction department. As in, the principles are sound, but the predictions of the experts are laughably wrong on a regular basis, possibly due to the fierce politicization of this branch of science. 1. http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg 2. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.h...

moultano 11y ago

This has happened several times before, and killed much of the life on earth. In a bit of cosmic irony, the life that was killed in previous anoxic events is what turned into the fossil fuel we're burning today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Occurrence

jonah 11y ago
The BBC just posted this article[1]. Pretty good review of the Anoxic extinctions. [1]"The Devonian extinction saw the oceans choke to death" http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150624-the-day-the-oceans-died http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150624-the-day-the-oceans-d...

unabridged 11y ago

Exactly, we don't even know if a 2F degree rise over a 125 year period is statistically significant, in may well be within a one standard deviation. Also the global mean surface temperature has not been well defined during this time period, it has changed as stations close and new ones are added, and as new technology is introduced.