Engineering360: "Point: Climate change data is wrong or exaggerated"

One only has to look at the last 70 years of climate predictions, that didn't come true, to realize that any predictions of the future are unreliable...

Tell that to users of Gantt charts....

What's that supposed to mean? Show us a Gantt chart that proves your point.

Good analysis of the Vostok ice core data, which was shown in a very condensed graph, has shown an 800+/-200 year lag between the rise in temperature and the following rise in atmospheric CO₂. The analysis points to CO₂ being forced out of the oceans by their temperature rise, as well as other factors. There is one problem with applying that data to claim that rising CO₂ levels do not precede or cause rising temperatures--the current CO₂ levels are far above any of the data in the 400,000 year Vostok cores. Therefore we invite trouble for trying to extrapolate these data to debunk or deny the possibility/probability/certainty of current CO₂ levels driving or leading temperature change instead of following it.

Do we want to deny the possible link between CO₂ levels and climate change? If we find ways to change our habits we will be taking steps that mimic the oath of doctors to "first do no harm". So working towards conservation, switching away from fossil fuel consumption, and many other steps may be wise, regardless of the direction of climate change science.

Well, this article was entirely unconvincing. The first chart shows that IPCC models varied from right on the money to underestimating rise. This would not indicate dramatic/catastrophic overestimation by climate extremists. The study linked in the 2nd point has the phrase "Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.", so that is a strawman. The concept that CO2 has historically been released from the oceans due to rising temperatures doesn't appear to be applicable to the current situation as higher sea acidity due to high carbonic acid levels are now observed concurrently with high atmospheric CO2. Even if we find ways to live with the high temperatures and sea levels, we'll still be killing the ocean life.

It was good that you included one dissenting scientist, but there are lots more. An example:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/30/former-award-winning-noaa-scientist-dr-rex-fleming-declares-his-climate-dissent-converted-from-warmist-to-skeptic-explains-why-climate-change-theory-is-bunk/

You claimed that the dissenters are boisterous. Show us the evidence for that if you can. Your inclusion of the ice-core samples was good, but you ignored it in your conclusions. This series of articles reminds me of a rigged election or a rigged debate like the one between Trump and Biden

Few if any believe that that the world is not warming. We are, after all, coming out of an ice age. 3/4 of the US was once covered by ice. I for one don't want to go back to that. The question is how much humans are contributing to it. No doubt some. A case in point: The arsonists that started several fires in California and Oregon were in fact human. And the corrupt police and judges that let them go are also human.

No one is denying "climate change", the question really is whether or not it is "man driven".

IMHO, the charts in this column show wild fluctuations of both carbon dioxide and temperature over the last 400,000 years and do not present any evidence of mankind's participation in those changes. This leads to the obvious (at least obvious in my mind) conclusion that these changes are natural and reasonably cyclical.

To that end, I can't see how mankind can actually change or even influence these natural cycles and therefore I'm not in the least worried about anthropogenic climate change; I am however worried about the political consequences of too much pursuit of "stopping" climate change.

TBC,

I agree that the climate is changing and with your legitimate question about whether it is anthropogenic or not. I strongly prefer the phrase "climate change" over "global warming" because it better describes what is happening.

The 400,000 year Vostok glacial core CO₂ & temperature data do not show any time when the CO₂ level was over 300 ppm, yet now it is at or above 400. I suspect we will be (or are) seeing an overlay of naturally-occurring fluctuations with human-caused ones. In saying this, I am assuming that you would agree that the recent (50-100 year) rise in these levels correlates very well with the quantity of fossil fuels burned in that period of time.

The Vostok data generally showed a lag between the temperature rise and the CO₂ rise. This supports the assumption of a naturally-occurring fluctuation caused by changes in insolation magnitude. The recent observed temperature changes appear to be either concurrent with or after the CO₂ changes, instead of preceding them by 100+ years. This anomaly strongly suggests careful and open-minded consideration of possible causes, one of which is anthropogenic climate change.

I agree that "political consequences of too much pursuit of stopping climate change" can be a real problem. I would also agree with those who say that we should modify our break-neck and reckless pursuit of consumption regardless of costs. Our present rate of fossil fuel consumption is not sustainable in terms of available resources--granted that we continue to discover resources but there is a limit to the ability to find and extract them in an environmentally-safe and cost-reasonable manner. There is an uncertainty principle we need to remember (not Heisenberg's): if in doubt about the magnitude of harm, do not go there without an overwhelming need.

--JMM