Plato thinking.

Reading Nature’s Records

To understand past climates, scientists study natural records, like tree rings or tiny openings in plants called stomata. These act like a diary, showing how temperature and CO2 levels changed centuries ago, before thermometers existed. This evidence helps us separate natural climate patterns from human impacts.

Unlike modern weather stations, these records come from nature—ice cores, fossils, or rocks. They’re not perfect, but they provide a reliable picture of Earth’s climate history, free from guesswork. By trusting these records, we can better understand what drives climate changes today.

For example, tree rings grow wider in wet years and narrower in dry ones, giving us a year-by-year snapshot of past weather. Ice cores trap air bubbles from thousands of years ago, revealing CO2 levels. These tools, grounded in direct observation, are the foundation of my approach to climate science.

CO2 and Plant Stomata

Stomata are small openings in plants that take in CO2 for growth. By counting stomata in fossil plants, scientists estimate past CO2 levels. These studies show CO2 wasn’t fixed at 280 parts per million before 1800, as some claim, but varied widely, averaging about 305 parts per million over the last 11,000 years.

Higher CO2 helps plants grow faster with less water, which explains why dry areas are greener today, as NASA’s maps show. This isn’t theory—it’s measured data from plants, soils, and ice cores. For example:

CO2 levels swung by 20–50 parts per million every 500–1,000 years, showing natural variability was common.

This suggests CO2 changes are partly natural, not just human-driven. It also shows plants thrive in higher CO2, which could help agriculture in dry regions. However, more wildfires may occur in dry areas without proper forest management, a practical challenge we must address.

Stomata are tiny pores on plant leaves and stems that regulate gas exchange, allowing carbon dioxide in for photosynthesis and releasing oxygen and water vapor.

Stomata are tiny pores on plant leaves and stems that regulate gas exchange, allowing carbon dioxide in for photosynthesis and releasing oxygen and water vapor. Their number varies due to CO2 concentrations. "Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm)." See The CO2 Record in Plant Fossils

Gaps in Modern Data

Modern climate data has limits. Before 1950, temperature records mainly came from North America, Europe, and Australia, leaving gaps in places like Africa, South America, or the southern oceans. When data is missing, scientists should admit it, not fill in the blanks with estimates that might mislead readers.

Some reports use dates like 1750, during a cold period called the Little Ice Age, to make today’s warming seem dramatic. Others start at 1979, after a cooling period, which skews comparisons. These choices can confuse the public, so we must demand clear, honest data to understand climate trends accurately.

Global temperature records only became reliable in the 1960s with satellites and sea buoys. Before then, data was spotty, especially outside wealthy nations. For example, early thermometers were less accurate, and many regions had no weather stations. This doesn’t mean modern data is useless, but it reminds us to question claims of “record” temperatures without full context.

Transparency is key. When scientists adjust old data to account for gaps, they should explain how and why, like showing their work in a math problem. Without this, trust in climate science weakens. I’m not saying data is manipulated, but unclear methods can make it seem that way. For instance, “pre-industrial” baselines like 1750 are often used without explaining that global records didn’t exist then. Honest science admits limits and invites scrutiny, which strengthens our understanding of climate.

We can improve by investing in better global monitoring, like more ocean buoys or weather stations in remote areas. Until then, we should focus on what we know—like natural records from tree rings or ice cores—and avoid overconfident claims about past or future climates. This approach respects evidence and keeps science grounded.

Share This Article

Evidence based Earth Science