Climate Change

[Strategus]

Up for serious debate. I have been aware of this data (widely available on t'interweb) for some time. I have drawn my own conclusions from it. But where better than here to see what the consensus is:

HxERL.png (135.06 KiB) Viewed 3539 times

Please discuss. All opinion welcome. Evidential if possible.

[V]

Sorry don’t have evidence (but really that’s the problem for everyone, they only have “models”). But do have an opinion.
Humankind is doing vast environmental damage & some argue climate change is part of that. Personally I’m not convinced we know the mechanism by which we are causing climate change, even if we accept we are the cause.

I’ve never been convinced by the argument that carbon dioxide is the problem. Animals produce it & plants absorb it. The earth probably has had the means to deal with variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide for millennia. As long as we don’t destroy all life around us (as we’re currently on track to achieve) I believe the capacity of forests to absorb carbon dioxide has probably been underestimated (at least I hope so).

I have a dim view of modern environmental science & think it has contributed to the political problems we now have surrounding environmental protection. Not because it’s always wrong as the deniers would have it, but because it so often comes across as lazy science. I’m a graduate Biochemist so understand scientific rigour.
Too often the environmental scientists have stated opinions, made predictions & it wasn’t true or hasn’t happened. They just blow it off as within experimental error of their “model” or some such nonsense, without reexamination of why what they expected to occur didn’t. In medical science they would have been discarded as quacks years ago.

But, let me say I’m passionate about environmental protection. I live in Costa Rica, one of the few nations that truly practise this essential policy. I think we are causing climate change, but I wish the environmental scientists would do a better job of establishing exactly how, with the kind of evidence acceptable in other scientific fields. Too often they sound like amateur politicians with opinions, instead of professional scientists with facts. This would help get consensus on the precise nature of the problem, the solutions & their implementation.

I fear we are fishing in the dark currently, chasing carbon dioxide emission targets, while blowing nitrous oxides into the atmosphere in appalling quantities, without truly knowing which (if either) are causing climate change or any other specific problem for that matter. It reminds me of medical science about 100 years ago, before Pasteur, Fleming, Krebs & many others.

[schocker]

"V" what an excellent post. I agree 100%. The "science" is so corrupted by grants and professors trying to build their reputations with what seems like little accountability.
In addition, I have noticed that when weather is hot and dry or there are fires we hear it is caused by climate change. But, if we have a big chill it is just "weather you moron. Don't you know the difference between weather and climate?"

[schocker]

Strategus, do you know how they measured the C02 levels in the various eras? I have no idea....Bio 101 was the end of my science.

[Strategus]

Strategus, do you know how they measured the C02 levels in the various eras? I have no idea....Bio 101 was the end of my science.

Fossil records and geological data I think. Sherlock Holmes stuff. But I tend to trust this data.

[Strategus]

For the record, I am not a climate skeptic, but am mostly interested in what the above data is telling us. I didn't want a debate on climate change per se.

[NoPunIn10Did]

This provides a decent clarification/rebuttal for that:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

[Strategus]

Ok. So we have been focusing on the CO2 levels. What about the temperature line?

[V]

I’m not a statistician but I can see no significant association between the two lines on that graph. They may as well be average number of puppies in a litter & likelihood of rain on Tuesdays. Atmospheric carbon dioxide & average global temperature do not seem to be in any way linked given that evidence.
The climate scientist quoted above, is the exact type to which I refer. Makes statements that appear refuted by the evidence, without explanation.
Whatever caused those average temperature deviations would be of huge interest, especially as we appear to be on the low end of historical variations, but the odds of it being carbon dioxide are apparently low. Need to look elsewhere.

[NoPunIn10Did]

Ok. So we have been focusing on the CO2 levels. What about the temperature line?

The graph is not precise enough to clearly show the local trend, which is going up.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature