The Science of Guesswork – Unpacking the B.S. in Climate Measurements

Introduction: Questioning the Numbers

"Most climate figures are, at best, educated guesses based on limited data and mountains of assumptions."

In today's media-saturated world, climate numbers are treated like the ultimate truth. Emissions in gigatons, atmospheric concentrations in percentages, the "settled science" of human impact—all presented with an air of undeniable certainty. But here's a truth that rarely gets mentioned: most of these figures are, at best, educated guesses based on limited data and mountains of assumptions. It's high time we question the precision of these numbers and explore the gaping holes in how we measure something as colossal as the Earth's climate.

Volcanic Emissions: Measuring the Unmeasurable

The Volcanic Challenge

The Earth has approximately 1,350 potentially active volcanoes worldwide, but we only monitor a small fraction of these regularly.

Take volcanic emissions, for instance. Scientists routinely estimate the amount of CO2 and other gases released by volcanoes, but here's the problem: we can only measure a handful of them.

Surface-level Measurements Only: The volcanoes we can reach are mostly on land and accessible during calm periods. Meanwhile, the world's oceans are littered with volcanic vents far out of reach, from which we can't gather data. As for measuring emissions from explosive eruptions? Forget it.
Extrapolation in Overdrive: With data from just a small portion of volcanoes, scientists must stretch those numbers across every volcanic system on Earth. This extrapolation is, at best, a well-meaning guess.

Ultimately, volcanic emission data is less a definitive measurement and more a guess—a rough sketch, if you will, rather than a detailed portrait.

The Oceanic Mystery

If you think we have a handle on the ocean's role in climate, think again. The ocean is an ever-moving, chemically complex system that behaves differently depending on location, temperature, depth, and countless other factors.

Tiny Samples, Big Claims: Scientists collect samples from a few areas, mainly close to the surface and in regions where research stations or ships happen to be.
Missing Molecules: CO2 is absorbed by the ocean in countless ways, each with its unique interactions depending on depth and time.

"Global" oceanic CO2 data is a mashup of educated guesses pieced together from minuscule samples—a guess based on limited glimpses, not a panoramic view.

Extrapolation Nation: The Problem with Scaling Up

Climate scientists often take local data and scale it up, assuming that one small measurement can represent the entire system.

The Scale Problem

When scientists measure a few square meters of forest and extrapolate to global scales, they're multiplying not just the data but also the uncertainty.

Local Measures Don't Always Translate: Scaling this up to get a "global" figure assumes all forests, oceans, or volcanoes act the same.
Accuracy Lost in the Scaling: Every layer of extrapolation, from local to regional to global, introduces a new level of inaccuracy.

So when you see a global emissions or absorption number, remember: that's not a raw measurement; it's an assumption-heavy estimate, a best guess with a lot of wiggle room.

Selective Blind Spots

The conversation around climate is also skewed by where we choose to look—and where we conveniently don't.

The Role of Methane and Wetlands: Methane is naturally released from wetlands, permafrost, and other areas.
The Overlooked Arctic: As Arctic permafrost thaws, it releases massive amounts of methane and CO2.

This selective focus creates a lopsided narrative, amplifying some sources while downplaying others.

Conclusion: Humility and Transparency in Science

In truth, the science behind climate numbers isn't nearly as exact as we're led to believe. Between the limitations of our measurements, the problems of extrapolation, and the selective focus, climate data is more educated guesswork than hard fact. Yet, we keep hearing these numbers presented as if they're undeniable truths, set in stone.

This isn't to say we shouldn't trust scientists, but we should demand transparency about the uncertainties and assumptions that underpin these numbers. Climate science needs humility—a willingness to say, "Here's what we think, but we could be wrong."

Food for Thought

Next time you hear a precise-sounding climate statistic, ask yourself: How was this measured? What assumptions went into this figure? What's the margin of error? Questioning isn't denying—it's the foundation of good science.