Climate Science – Cold Case vs. CSI

Why bring this up here? Well it illustrates nicely how paleo-climate research fits in to our understanding of current changes. Let me explain....

For the last 30 years or so, the amount of information we have about the planet has gone up by a couple of orders of magnitude - mainly due to satellite information on atmospheric (radiation, temperature, humidty, rainfall, cloudiness, composition etc.), ocean surface (temperature, ice cover, windiness) and land properties (land cover, albedo) etc. Below the surface, we are now measuring much more of the ocean changes in heat content and carbon. This data, while still imperfect, has transformed our view of the climate such that the scientists studying it can seriously discuss details of problems that twenty years ago were not even thought of as issues. "CSI - Planet Earth" if you like.

Comparatively, the amount of information we have for any period in the past is less - hundreds (in some cases a few thousand) of records of climate 'proxy' data (i.e. records that are related to climate, such as tree rings ot isotope ratios, but that aren't direct thermometers or rain gauges) that are not necessarily optimally spaced, nor necessarily well-dated, nor uncontaminated by non-climate influences. However, there is the great advantage of a much longer time period to work with, as well as a greater variety of changes to investigate. Think of the people that work on that as the 'Cold Case' crew.