02-12-2017, 08:26 PM
(02-11-2017, 08:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The "science"? Their sample size is but less than a pin prick sized dot in the cumulative history of the Earth.
CO2 levels have a direct correlation with temperature, that fact is indisputable.
That said, we have several methods beyond ice cores from which we can extrapolate CO2 levels going back millions of years. One method is from fossilized leaves and their stomata. Stomata are the pores on the underside of leaves that plants use to take in CO2. The trade off is that while the stomata are open, the plant loses water. So it is an evolutionary advantage for a plat to be able to get by with as few stomata as possible to reduce water loss during CO2 uptake.
We can use modern plants along with ice cores to see the correlation. During times of high atmospheric CO2, leaves have fewer stomata....the plant can get enough CO2 with fewer pores. During times of low atmospheric CO2, the number of stmata on leaves is significantly higher...the plant needs more pores to get enough C)2 to conduct photosynthesis. With this correlation, and the correlation between CO2 and temperatures, we can get a good look going back hundreds of millions of years.
Do you know what has been found? That the highest CO2 levels also correlated with the highest levels of species extinction in Earth's history...and in fact directly correlating with two of them. Let's think about that...current CO2 levels are higher (and still climbing) than at almost any other time on several hundred million years according to several different methods of obtaining that data....2 of which I outlined.
I don't know how much more of a sample size you need to start catching on. But suffice it to say, there are other metods that scientists are using besides the limited knowledge you may be basing your opinion off of.
