What happened here?
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
152 points (99.4% liked)
History
23332 readers
351 users here now
Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.
c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting
Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).
When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.
Historical Disinformation will be removed
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Interesting thought, but don't you think the delta in the last 250 years or so of ice core data works against the hypothesis? In other words if smoothing worked to hide peaks in this way, how would the 1700-1958 ice core data values be possible?
There are also measurable effects of rapid concentration increases, although even the short ones tend to play out on a decadal timeline. Even if the ice cores didn't capture those effects, it should still be visible in other non-CO2 datasets like evidence of rapid glacier melting or forest fires. (Rapid emissions have much more significant effects than slow pulses.) Afaik we've not found evidence of this.
You could also potentially do a statistical analysis to estimate original impulses from the diffused CO2 data as they would still have an identifiable signal even if diffused. I'm not sure what if any research has been done along those lines.
Well, not all ice core data is equal. It depends on the rate of ice accumulation, so high accumulation sites will give much higher precision, especially for more recent years (say, the last few centuries). But my assumption is that low accumulation sites are where we get most of our much older data. I could be totally wrong as I'm talking out my behind.
Low accumulation sites will smooth out the peaks to the scale of centuries, according to that other post, so what looks like 200 years of 300ppm could be a lot spikier in reality. Whether one can do some 'further analysis' I have no idea.
I agree 100% with your second paragraph, there's nothing I'm aware of that suggests CO2 has spiked liked this before. And it seems highly unlikely that it would've. And we may well have evidence to actually disprove such a theory.