Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Few Questions on Climate Change
The climate experts tell us that CO2 levels correlate with temperature, and that this is consistent throughout the Earth’s geologic history. Yet, recognizing that correlation is not causation, how does one conclude that higher levels of CO2 induce higher temperatures, rather than higher temperatures inducing higher CO2 levels. After all, CO2 moves from the oceans into the atmosphere as temperatures rise.
We are told that temperatures in earlier geologic epochs are based on sea levels in those eras, estimates of which are based on geological evidence. So are they telling us that higher temperatures cause sea levels to rise, as deduced by sea level rises used to estimate temperatures?
If one goes to the site of ancient Troy, on the coast of Turkey, one is told that sea levels are much lower now than they were in Agamemnon’s day (about 2,400 years ago), by 30 feet or more. Likewise, the narrow pass at Thermopylae no longer has the sea lapping at the sides of the pass, but there is a considerable amount of dry land that the entire Persian army could have easily traversed, before you get to the sea, and we would have no movie of The Three Hundred, and no legend of Leonidas. We are told that pre-industrial CO2 levels have been as low as 180 ppm compared to today’s 410 ppm. So why are the sea levels lower now than then, if rising CO2 levels begat higher temperatures which begat rising sea levels? I see articles claiming that CO2 levels at different geological times have been as high as 28,000 ppm, though those appear to be speculation. There are other estimates that CO2 levels may have been as high as 2800 ppm as late as the Pliocene or Myocene, times when homo habilis and homo erectus were roaming the planet. Other estimates are 600 to 1000 ppm. These seem like massive discrepancies.
The experts tell us that the effects of CO2 rises take time to be observed, so we should be patient. How patient? A hundred years? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? A Hundred Thousand years? More? They seem to have no idea. But then they tell us that the CO2 rise, from possibly below 200 ppm to over 400 ppm is unprecedented in geological history, that this rapid rise portends catastrophe, that by the time we hit over 600 ppm (another 200 years?) we will be steaming and dead from global warming, er, climate change. Should not such a rapid rise in CO2 levels cause a similarly rapid change in global temperature and sea levels? If the rise is so rapid and dramatic, should not the climate consequences appear rapidly? If not, why not?
The experts tell us that they have measured CO2 levels back about 800,000 years. Most of that time, the earth experienced the great ice ages. Why did the earth warm up so much before the Industrial period of the last 200 years? At a time when the sun was dimming, we are told? At a time when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now? WE are told there were 17 cycles between glacial periods and warming periods over the last 2.5 million years (homo habilis and homo erectus were present on earth and beginning to harness fire somewhere around 2.5 million years ago, but certainly not producing the vast quantities of CO2 from fossil fuels that we are producing now. If dramatic glaciation and warming occurred, on average, every 150,000 years, how did that possibly occur? And if we went from massive glaciation to almost no glaciation in 150,000 years, wouldn’t we be seeing more rapid temperature changes than we are seeing now? We are supposedly in an interglacial period now, which started somewhere between 25000 and 11000 years ago. The last 11,000 years have included the arrival of human history. How did the warming occur that allowed the human species to thrive so greatly?
And how is it that we are supposed to believe that a gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere is the primary driver of climate? Or that a gas that comprises 0.00017% of the atmosphere (methane) is another major driver of temperature? To me, that stretches credibility considerably.
It seems to me that none of these questions are well explained by climate scientists.
Perhaps someone at Ricochet could explain some of these questions for me. Anyone? Bueller?
Thanks in advance.
Published in General
And while we’re at it, can someone explain what’s wrong with Judith Curry’s doubts?
Does the evidence for man-caused GW not all assume that we can reliably measure and track both the atmosphere and the oceans?
Is it not true that such knowledge is far beyond our capability?
I’m confident that Greta has answers to all of your questions.
We are told many lies. Shall we assume your questions are rhetorical? Because anyone that uses “interglacial” correctly in sentence probably knows all the answers already.
For that don’t know the answer, CO2 lags temperature change since the oceans capture and release CO2 based on ocean temperature.
Apparently thanks to our most kind Overlords the Chinese CO2 levels have increased something like 44% over the last 20 years due to the construction of so many coal fired power plants but the earth’s temperature actually went down .
But we just gotta shut down all our industry or the world is surely gonna burn up by 2030 even though. China’s carbon footprint is 2 1/2 times ours.
I am so frightened the world is gonna end even though all these racist bitter clingers keep on flinging about their racist “facts” that surely none of the “right” people believe.
I think Greta is transitioning.
In Science, like most endeavors, you get what you pay for . We are getting the scientific results and conclusions that the funders paid for , that suit the funders political agendas and purposes. Results or conclusions that don’t support the funders political agendas and purposes get suppressed, and the authors get slandered and shuffled off to nowheresville.
Temperatures from prior ages are also measured via ice core temperatures. I wrote a long blog post (Hockey Sticks and Ice Cores, and Why It’s All the Fault of Beer)on this in 2009 and looked at ice-core temps (and even made cool little graphs) going back half a million years in Antarctica and fifty thousand in Greenland. What we learn from those ice cores and their temperatures is that the earth has been in a warm period for the past 10,000 years and the only real anomaly is that we haven’t gotten colder. Assuming that these changes are anthropomorphic then it has to be beer that is the cause of our current warm period.
But read the blog post, and if you want to follow the links to the ice core data I provide them at the end and, amazingly, they still work.
You have stolen my childhood!
Um … no … Greta. Your parents did that.
Yup. By a few hundred years, give or take, apparently.
Shoot! Wrong post! Sorry…carry on…
Ditto
I recommend Wikipedia-ing the name Milutin Milankovic. He is the originator of the Milankovic Cycles which offer a partial explanation as to why the earth doesn’t have a ‘room temperature.’ During the Medieval Warm period England had a thriving wine industry and there was agriculture in Greenland. During the Little Ice age the Thames would regularly freeze over. The slight rise in global temperatures that has occurred since then might simply be a natural rebound from an unusually cold period. Or not. I’m agnostic on the idea of anthropogenic climate change. I’m certainly not a “climate denier.” In fact, according to some Chicken Littles I’m something way, way worse: I’m a “techno-fixer.” We will be able to fix whatever we’re doing to the climate because there’s an awful lot of really smart people out there and careers and fortunes are to be made in coming up solutions for whatever mess we get ourselves in. In other words, we just need to chill out.
This is it, exactly. But here in America we must realize that it is much more than the science that has been bought and it has been accomplished over a long and strategic period. Just consider that where we are now with all the prosperity that allows the purchase of every institution needed to enable the placement of corrupt leaders to attempt what we are witnessing was led and made possible by American enterprise. MAGA.
Now, now. You should know that we can keep the Earth’s temperature the same, all the time, if we just try a little harder.
Anthropogenic.
I’m still waiting for someone to posit the optimum average global temperature, with their reasoning.
Whether / how much warming is anthropogenic is meaningless unless it’s shown that warmer is worse than cooler. The entire argument rests on the assumption that warmer is worse, but that’s mostly taken for granted, or hand-waived away with poorly supported claims of a runaway positive feedback loop. If the science is truly settled <snort>, it must include a settled consensus on the optimum temperature. What is it?
She could make fortune by doing a worldview 180 and write a book denouncing all the things she had said in the past.
Shapiro and Klavan (no “e”) could launch a massive PR campaign.
Aww, man, isn’t it funnier if they actually have little human-like lives and concerns? Can’t you just see those little climate models lining up to get their second in the sun and contribute their bit to the hockey stick?
Warmer temps mean more parts of the earth are arable and support more life. So, higher usually means better because more food can be grown/raised and thus more people survive.
I believe this is probably correct, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s not settled.
Theoretically, as I understand it, a warming climate is likely to cause some parts of the globe to become less arable due to drought or whatnot, while causing others to become more arable due to a longer growing season, more rain, etc. Assuming this can be accurately modeled (spoiler alert: it can’t), how do you weigh these tradeoffs?
Is X million more acres arable land in, say, sub-Saharan Africa better or worse than Y million fewer acres in the Midwest USA, assuming that’s what would happen (as an overly-simplistic example)? All of Siberia is marginally better and isolated parts of India are quite a bit worse over a much smaller area – good or bad, overall? Repeat across the globe. This algebra would be mostly a political question.
That’s not even getting into the wailing about some obscure flora or fauna potentially going extinct in a remote corner of Australia or something.
My point is that it is impossible to even come up with a political consensus on the criteria for judging “better” and “worse”, before even worrying about a “scientific” consensus of modeling the regional effects of a given amount of warming or cooling (which, again, I don’t believe is possible to do with sufficient accuracy).
All of this is simply skipped over in the global warming debate.
And it seems to be pretty well known – perhaps even “settled” – that more people die from cold than from warm.
Kent, You’re not trying to tell us that our academic researchers are all bought and paid for ?Are you?
Well I never! Surely you jest?
The funding for such projects is scrupulously scrutinized to make sure no “conspiracy theorists” spoil our country’s research with obviously deranged Alt-Right ideas so we can be sure our research is not contaminated and aspires to conform to the highest and most correct standards that our ever so enlightened academic community has so rigorously investigated and agreed upon.
These researchers are not “bought and paid for” at all but are simply conforming to the rigorous standards and guidelines set by the most enlightened in our academic community so we are all protected from deviant thought.
This kind of discussion always reminds me of Eisenhower’s warning.
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/the-military-industrial-academic-political-scientific-complex
Yup. The ratio is about 6 to 1.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-and-deaths-from-extreme-heat-and-cold
Celebrity is more valuable than money.
Dear @Unsk, @kedavis, @TerryMott, @Dbroussa, @DavidSchmitt, etc
Here are my comments on the Great GW Debate. I posted this way back in 2021.
https://ricochet.com/981145/why-non-greeniacs-should-pay-attention-to-global-warming/
The underlying premise of the Green
movementreligion is that “natural” is always better than “artificial,” therefore man-made climate change is ipso facto bad b/c it’s “artificial.” All the explanations for why warmer is bad (More drought! More rain! The polar bears will drown!) are rationalizations to justify the core commandment that Thou Shalt Not Alter the Environment.Titled “How Dare I!”
I snapped this photo at a museum exhibit a few years back:
I don’t recall if it explained the source of this data, but assuming for the sake of argument it is correct, it certainly looks to me like: