If those who want to say that CO2 levels are trending up then there is a significant need to have 1000's upon 1000's of monitoring points worldwide. This way the evidence can be gathered to show what is happening around the globe.
In addition, with these CO2 monitoring points, we need rainfall information, temperature information, plant growth rate information, vehicle usage, manufacturing and population information. We need volcanic activity information, we need land usage information, we need forest and bush fire information. This data collection is only the tip of the "iceberg" of information we need.
Without it, we do not have the evidence profile required to demonstrate what is actually happening around the world. Without that evidence, we are unable to see what needs to be done.
When it boils down to it, there are climate change effects that can be mitigated, there are climate change effects that cannot be mitigated. Choosing strategies that are ineffective is, in many cases, worse than doing nothing.
Take my country Australia for example, many of the species of plant life depend on drought conditions and the subsequent bush fires for the propagation of the species and regeneration of the land. Increased CO2 levels have a beneficial effect on the plant life by either reducing water consumption or increasing density and growth of plants, so that our tree population increases. Increasing forest coverage increases water retention.
Without comprehensive data, we are all blind-sided. There is no level playing field on which we can build the appropriate strategies.
For those who say we must do something now, how do you know that what is being proposed won't make things worse?
There are thousands of co2 monitoring stations worldwide, and they all show the same data. Mauna Loa is a good indicator for global co2 in the atmosphere because its position is exposed to high altitude winds that circulate around the entire Pacific ocean, and it is not near a extremely populated area with a lot of fossil fuel burning that would skew the results.
Quite right. Geologist here - I know a lot of folks who study climate and paleoclimate, they know what they're doing. If anything I'd say the evidence is even more solid than most well-informed people realize.
edit: if anyone wants comprehensive data, a good place to start is with the IPCC reports, particularly the "physical science basis" section: http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
This is a few years old now (they're currently working on the "sixth report") but the data was already clear and uncontroversial.
> Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.
After water vapour has been removed? What is the effect if water vapour is not removed from the figures? Does this show a different profile or is the profile identical? What was the reasoning for removing the water vapour figures from the readings?
Simple line graphs like these don't give the kinds of profiles needed. We need much more comprehensive mapping. Looking at the sites mentioned, there does not appear to sufficient coverage of all environmental areas to give us a clear picture of what is going on.
My first question is whether or not the measurements are being affected by the local environment profiles - are there other factors we need to know about the areas in which the measurements are taking place? In other words, are there specific site characteristics that effect CO2 measurements that are not applicable elsewhere. For other untested sites, are there site specific characteristics that would show a higher or lower CO2 profile?
You note that the high altitude winds that circle the Pacific Ocean are an advantageous factor for Mauna Loa in determining global CO2 levels. My first question relates to what effects does the Ring of Fire have on these readings and my second would be related to what effects does the circulating wind flows have on these readings.
Just looking at the displayed data leaves me with lots of unanswered questions.
These are questions that can only be answered by having CO2 monitoring stations located in 1000's upon 1000's of different locations: islands, remote sea buoys, mountain ranges, savannahs, forests, high plains, low plains, continuously circling weather balloons, coastal and internal land mass locations, cities, farming communities, deserts and arid land locations, tropical, sub-tropical, temperate zones. We also need all the other data that will give us a handle on what is happening.
For ocean locations, are there dissolved CO2 levels that are affected by changing temperature profiles and is there a atmospheric and ocean transfer of CO2 that affects the readings? Does the plankton population levels change the CO2 levels, is there feedback loops here - positive or negative?
There are many more measurements that can be undertaken to give us a better understanding of what is happening. The complexity is very high and we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields to get the information required.
As I said, we need comprehensive data to be able to determine what strategies are going to be useful and what will be of no use whatsoever.
You are not an expert in this area I presume. You brought up some thoughtful questions and points which could skew measurements. Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Being able to think of possible ways that a measurement might be bad or skewed indicates a likely gap in your knowledge and is not a reflection on the science.
Your statement: ...we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields.... paints you as a troll. The only people who think the scientific consensus on climate change is the result of political beliefs and not scientifically sound reasons are of a certain persuasion.
Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things?
Yes, but. Look, I'm not an expert in this area and so I have to hold my hands up and say I don't have a clue and have to defer to those who think they do.
However, in most other areas of research I find people are able to make a simple, clear case with other factors accounted for in a way that climate change seems to lack. I don't know enough about it to know why, maybe it's just the difficulty in ruling out other factors on one planet. But I feel like I've lost count of the number of times a single dataset like that from Mauna Loa is held up, questioned and then... nothing. Well, nothing but pointing out someone isn't an expert.
We should probably do a better job of addressing the questions people have given the importance. Or at least, someone who's an expert should probably do better if they want everyone to buy into the argument.
I propose that the single data point perception comes from the media and not the experts. The writers of articles in newspapers and popular media are not necessarily well informed. Reporters cling to the “single data point” it seems to me because it makes it easier to for them to write their articles. I doubt very much that any expert uses a single data point to make a conclusion.
In general when I read about a study done by experts in an area outside of my expertise and I quickly come up with possible objections to the conclusion I assume this says more about my lack of knowledge than it does about theirs. A lot of times I read an article about math in a newspaper and something is just plain wrong in the article but explaining to a layman why it’s wromg is not so easy. I don’t know if the same thing is true for climate scientists but I suspect it is.
I’m all for people questioning things and wondering why a given conclusion is right. I want though for laymen to use such questions as the basis for furthering their own study and quest for knowledge in that area instead of stopping at the question and concluding the scientists have it wrong.
Let me ask you a question. Do you ask those who have done the study those questions and if so, what were their responses? Did they answer and if they did not, what do you draw from that?
I work from the basis of there are no stupid questions. Some are difficult, some are annoying, some of them challenging and some are unanswerable, but none of them are stupid.
I also don't like how any question not draped with otherwise agreement is automatically thought of as bigotry.
I didn't take the time to read all the comments in this thread but I did not have the impression you were trying to "debunk climate change" to the contrary, you seemed to accept the presence of problems, but desire more open access to the datasets and presumably tutorials and explanations on how to reproduce analysis (think kaggle scripts).
You correctly point out the danger of inefficient or insufficient diagnosis and treatment of the problems. In a sense you seem to hint at counterintuitive policies, where the straightforward policy would be more costly (and hence the difference in cost could have been spent otherwise on more monitoring or treatment).
Regarding CO2 monitoring on a worldwide scale, it is indeed a problem scientists and engineers are dealing with. None of your downvoters point out any of the found solutions for the problem you visualize, but they do have the time to downvote you, which imho is not entirely fair, so I will take a little time to respond on that front: they use remote sensing of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), molecules have their own spectra (normal spectra or raman spectra), imaging satellites equiped with lasers take "pictures" of the concentrations of the species under study. These need to be callibrated (at least during the start of their program, and probably periodically throughout the satellite's mission). They can use selected ground stations, or airborne labs measuring CO2 levels. Then the whole picture can be interpreted.
There's a lot of unhelpful vile, I presume mostly coming from ex-denialists. There's that saying that goes like: at first they laugh at you, then they vehemently oppose you, and then they not only agree, but pretend they were on the side of history all along... These ex-denialists lack the knowledge to help others see the light, but are more than willing to poop "in the name of their new team" on anyonne who seems to be still in denial...
Do you worry or deny that carbon fiber airplanes are safe to fly, do you not use cell phones or gps because you don't believe that physics works? No, you don't. You only want to seek proof for things that are uncomfortable for you.
No I am not an expert in the field. Should the experts have seen these questions? Yes. But did they? I don't know. We don't have the data presented to us. Often, the right questions are asked by those who are not experts in that field.
Any gap in my knowledge can well be a reflection of the science. The question I asked about the removal of water vapour figures and why is simply not answered here. As a matter of course for publicly disseminated information, the reasoning for this removal should be explicitly available as well as all the graphs related to having the information included as well as what they presented. That is their responsibility if they want buy-in by the general public.
As far as calling someone a troll for stating about non-political cooperation, I have worked for many different kinds of companies and organisations over the decades, private, public and government. In all of them, politics was a normal mode of life, except where certain people were able to protect their staff from it. When politics was not involved, we could achieve much and did achieve much. You demonstrate that politics is alive and well by using the word troll.
I don't care about consensus, I care about the data and what it indicates for me and all the generations that follow. I am not interested in strategies that will be ineffective. Without the data we just don't know. If you want to believe the experts without them providing their full reasoning and assumptions, fair enough, you are entitled to that. But I want more, a lot more. I want the data so that it can be analysed by many people so that we can see what it shows. I want to know the assumptions made in the data collection and analysis done. I want to see what interactions are occurring that we can measure. I don't expect consensus, I don't expect agreement as to what it means. But I do expect enough people of different persuasions to get together to hammer out possible strategies for moving forward.
If all we have is name calling, then we are not going to develop any effective beneficial strategies for moving forward. If questions are asked then they need answered, clearly and in detail. If these questions are not answered then a major problem exists. You don't build confidence in your expertise if you disparage those who are asking difficult or annoying questions.
The important thing here is the collection of data and across a very broad range of fields. Without that publicly available data, with many eyes looking at it, do you really think somebody, anybody can come up with the appropriate strategies for the future?
Climate change is inevitable, it is very real. What we can do to mitigate the effects effectively is dependent on much more knowledge than is currently available. We need to get that comprehensive data across all sorts of fields and get it fast.
If those who want to say that CO2 levels are trending up then there is a significant need to have 1000's upon 1000's of monitoring points worldwide. This way the evidence can be gathered to show what is happening around the globe.
In addition, with these CO2 monitoring points, we need rainfall information, temperature information, plant growth rate information, vehicle usage, manufacturing and population information. We need volcanic activity information, we need land usage information, we need forest and bush fire information. This data collection is only the tip of the "iceberg" of information we need.
Without it, we do not have the evidence profile required to demonstrate what is actually happening around the world. Without that evidence, we are unable to see what needs to be done.
When it boils down to it, there are climate change effects that can be mitigated, there are climate change effects that cannot be mitigated. Choosing strategies that are ineffective is, in many cases, worse than doing nothing.
Take my country Australia for example, many of the species of plant life depend on drought conditions and the subsequent bush fires for the propagation of the species and regeneration of the land. Increased CO2 levels have a beneficial effect on the plant life by either reducing water consumption or increasing density and growth of plants, so that our tree population increases. Increasing forest coverage increases water retention.
Without comprehensive data, we are all blind-sided. There is no level playing field on which we can build the appropriate strategies.
For those who say we must do something now, how do you know that what is being proposed won't make things worse?