For all you people interested in the environment one way or the other...?

Question

Why is it that all scientists, for or against the existence of the greenhouse effect, are basing their answers on only a few hundred year's worth of hard data? I would think that a true scientist would not make assumptions about something that has a history of existence for billions of years (the Earth) based on such a small amount of data. Why is this enough to justify answers either way?

Answer 1

Probably that is all the data we have collected so far.

Answer 2

First of all, they're not arguing about the existance of the greenhouse effect. It is real. It is what keeps our planet from being a constant -20 F. They are arguing about whether the release of CO2 from human sources is causing an increase in this effect (known in the scientific community as 'anthropogenic global warming').

But I do agree with you. A lot of Al Gore's "stunning" graphics are only stunning/shocking because he truncates (cuts off) the data at an arbitrary point. If he showed data just a little before where he cut it off, the graph loses its significance. In Al Gore's case, he likes showing that things have gone "up". The graph would not appear to go "up" any more, but be consistent with data from long ago. Look at his forest fire data from 1950-present. If you add data from 1920-1950 to the graph, you can see that nothing is out of the ordinary.

The 'Hockey Stick' graph is another one. But there is just too much written about it, you should just look it up and read what people are saying. Basically the way data from tree rings and ice cores was spliced together is not statistically correct, and skews the data to look the way it does. The people who rebutted it were lashed out at, with the opposition saying, "they are only an economist and psychiatrist (<--not sure of the second profession)". But they don't need to be versed in climatology to point out a statistical error. In fact, I would trust an economist and psychiatrist with statistics more than most other professions.

The consensus is fake....ahhhh! Make me stop talking about global warming! Too much on Yahoo! Answers to handle!

Answer 3

You are mistaken in believing that scientists base their data on simply a few hundred years of data.

1) CO2 levels can be determined by ice core sampling. Basically, a glacier has a stratigraphic (layered) procession that allows us to date the ice at a certain depth. We then take a core of that ice (which will have captured air pockets from said time) and we test that air to determine how much CO2 is in the air. We then construct a time/CO2 graph and we can see how atmospheric CO2 has changed over time.

2) We can use isotopic analysis to determine historical temperatures of the earth through O18/O16 testing. Basically, we test how much of one isotope of oxygen vs. another isotope of oxygen exists in something like the shells of ancient fossils. O18 is heavier than O16, so if it was warm (no glaciers) there would be an abundance of O16 in the organisms shells (because O16 is lighter than O18, and more O16 would be held in a glacier during a cool period).

3) We can than use the time/temperature and time/CO2 graphs and make a comparison for at least millions of years of data. After which a hypothesis can be made.

I hope that helps!

Answer 4

Well I do understand your concern and you are right in one way, But on the other hand, there is a possibility of certain research data done for few seconds might be enough to predict and evaluate the effect it has for billions of years. Example emission if Arsenal is bad - experiment and get to know in few seconds - But true till end of Human race.

As far as the green house is concerned, It is a kind of a unique, consistent pattern - so they do not have to collect data for millions of years - how ever, they do have an idea of climatic changes, based on results given my Geographers !

Answer 5

There are many thousands of years worth of data from sources like glacier core samples, and millions of years worth of data in the rocks and fossil record. Climate research uses those and other sources to reconstruct a history of the earth's climate all the way back to its formation, about 4 billion years ago.

We don't have direct measurements of the climate back farther than a few hundred years, but there's plenty of evidence indicating what the climate did in the past.

Answer 6

Global warming and all other environmental issues go back billions of years, but I believe the scientific community is more concerned about the last few hundred years' worth of hard data because of how our society has evolved in those last few hundred years. The "industrial revolution" created man-made disruptions to the environment, accelerated the natural progression of global warming, and contributed to the ripping away of the ozone layer that protects us from the dangerous rays of the sun.
Smoke-belching factories and vehicle emissions have caused the global warming process to accelerate, which will result in the polar ice caps melting at a far faster rate, which means cities along both coasts of both major oceans might suffer catastrophic hurricanes, phenomenal flooding, and other 'natural' disasters that have been fueled by man's wasteful and destructive ways.
Amazonian rain forests are being chopped down to make way for more grazing land for cattle, all so that companies like McDonald's can sell us billions and billions more cheap hamburgers. As those rain forests are destroyed, so is the delicate ecological balance between man, plants, and animals that allows us all to survive as nature (or an evolutionary "big bang" process, or an intelligent designer, or God) intended.
If we continue to drill for oil in the caribou's migratory paths, we will eventually destroy the caribou. So, which is more important for this Earth? The natural way of the caribou (on which some Eskimo tribes rely for food, clothing and shelter) or our greedy need for more gasoline with which to fuel our gas-guzzling $60,000 SUVs?
If we drill for oil in our oceans, we might very well cause some sea life to become extinct because we will have inadvertently interrupted their natural habitats. So, in a generation, your great-grandchildren might not be able to enjoy a simple tuna casserole for dinner, all because Exxon-Mobil and Dick Cheney decided it was more important to suck more oil out of the Earth.
If we don't REturn, REuse, and REcycle everything that isn't quickly biodegradable, landfills fill up to a point where they will leach toxic poisons into our air and into our water supplies. So, your great-grandchildren might have to resort to wearing gas masks in order to breathe. Or, there might not be enough fresh drinking water in order for them to survive.
All because we chose NOT to recycle our cardboard, plastics, glass, used cooking grease, tires, asphalt, old computers, tin cans, cell phones, newsprint, magazines, styrofoam, telephone books, steel, aluminum, and scrap paper.
Most scientists applauded Al Gore's film, 'An Inconvenient Truth', for its stark reality and accuracy. A scientist on last Sunday's '60 Minutes' segment announced that lawyers for the Bush administration 'edit' his speeches about global warming to water-down his warnings as to the immediate threat this poses to the world.
Perhaps over billions of years there were other cultures and societies on Earth that squandered the planet's natural resources just as we have done in the past 150 years. And perhaps that's why those societies don't exist today. -RKO-

Answer 7

the conclusions are NOT based on only a few hundred years of data, more like millions of years. data doesn't have to be from observation alone, there is loads of other evidence that can tell you about past climates.

Answer 8

Well, they are scientists, so they are paid to give answers to the best of their knowledge, even if their knowledge is limited to a few hundred years. Most of them make pretty good guesses, most of the time. I think that's all we can ask of them. Would you like them to simply say, "I don't know," turn their backs on science, and become card dealers in Vegas?

Answer 9

Recognized scientists have to have funding for their research. Dare to go against the grain and see what happens to their funding. Without huge funding, do you think an incongruent and ever-changing theory as evolution could be classified as a science?

Boaz

Answer 10

Go to www.CO2science.com.
The information on this web site looks at longer time periods. When information is not available they tell you so, and they tell you the information based on such short time periods is inconclusive.