Also, it’s not as if we just have to guess that carbon dioxide is increasing in our atmosphere. We can measure it. Nor do we have to guess what natural levels looked like in the past since those atmospheres were captured by ice in such places as Greenland and Antarctica.
The natural cycle of climate causes carbon dioxide to bounce between 180 and 280 ppm. This is mostly due to the Milankovitch cycles which cools and warms the planet. As the oceans cool they can hold more CO2, so they pull it out of the atmosphere. As the oceans warm the carbon dioxide is less soluble so it comes out of solution, much like a warm soda. In the long term, plants and shell producing organisms can lock away carbon dioxide, but over shorter intervals it is actually the temperature itself that controls CO2, at least with natural cycles.
What is the CO2 concentration now? We are over 400 ppm, a full 30-40% above where we should be at the peak of an interglacial period. We also know that this is due to fossil fuels because fossil fuels are ultimately derived from photosynthesis. This process favors the lighter isotope of carbon, and that’s exactly what we see in our atmosphere. We have observed an increase in 12C in our atmosphere which is the fingerprint of burning fossil fuels. If the increase were due to volcanic eruptions then we wouldn’t see this shift in isotopes, but we do.
It’s also not a coincidence that carbon dioxide levels just happened to go 40% above all the highs over the last few interglacials just at the time we happen to be dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In the past it was temperature that modulated carbon dioxide. Now it is us.
Instead of believing the media-ready versions of the climate apocalypse you really should put some effort into what the data actually say about hurricanes, fires, sea level changes, etc. Try Steven Koonin’s book Unsettled. He is a serious scientist who treats the existing data with care and almost entirely relies on IPCC data and models to make his points, i.e., he is not cherry picking data to suit a narrative as so many climate science people do. It will take an open mind and some work on your part.
I don’t see how anything he might be associated with or have done in his life negates his treatment of facts. Perhaps you want to provide your bio so we can judge you by what you by the ‘book cover’ vs. what is in the book…
Then Koonin’s book Unsettled is the place to go. It extensively references IPCC reports and primary journal articles by a host of atmospheric and climate scientists. I’m pretty sure that any few articles I would highlight would not satisfy her or others like her (you?) who are so bought into the media-driven narrative on climate that openness to any other perspective is not even considered - consensus or nothing. BTW, does any one remember when the consensus on nutrition was that a low fat diet would save us from ourselves so we could live a long, skinny and happy life?
I accept that human activity has contributed to global warming over the past century. I don’t think the IPCC says more than that, i.e., does not say that if humans died off in 1900 temperatures would not have changed. The data is correlation-dependent and so the best we can do is make assumptions on cause. Unfortunately, the IPCC models tell us that little can be done to affect the human caused rise in temperature by 2100. Even best estimates of the impact of the recent US Inflation Reduction Act (poorly named) which provides some hope that US can get to a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 (from 2005 peak), suggest that its impact on temperature in 2100 will be less than 0.1 degree F. The problem going forward is not the US but the rest of world, most of which is the less-well developed world which is dependent on fossil fuels to improve the quality of life for its citizens.
It is a lense through which you can read the book and interpret the facts presented. If he were a lone wolf, his perspective would be damning but he is not. BTW, his book is not about climate science but rather about we have overestimated negative forecasts and underestimated human capacity to address challenges we face.
Then why did you cite IPCC models in earlier posts? You seemed to think they were credible in those earlier posts.
" Unfortunately, the IPCC models tell us that little can be done to affect the human caused rise in temperature by 2100. Even best estimates of the impact of the recent US Inflation Reduction Act (poorly named) which provides some hope that US can get to a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 (from 2005 peak), suggest that its impact on temperature in 2100 will be less than 0.1 degree F."
I do believe they are credible, and did cite their data. The problem arises in how some selectively use the data, or more likely - parts of the data - to exaggerate a point for political gain.
Koonin worked for BP for a short time. Interesting that you ‘cherry-picked’ that small part of his bio rather than the more relevant parts - Undersecretary for Science in the US DOE under President Obama, lead author of Quadrennial Technology Review-2011, more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, and climate science, professor of theoretical physics at Caltech, VP and provost at Caltech for a decade, and more…
Figure SPM.4 - Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906 to 2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for 1901–1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 19 simulations from fi ve climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings.
There are approximately 330 references cited in his book. Which specific topic would a reference help you with. I’m pretty sure there are none that would since you have taken the [term removed by moderator] position of casting stones and refusing to consider anything other than what you already believe to be true based on ‘consensus’…whatever that actually is for any given one of the 100s of germane elements related climate science.
The IPCC models are good in as much as the assumptions behind the models are accurate. The IPCC models have already been revised several times and generally have moderated the expected rise in temperatures through 2100 as new data is applied and the models are tested against the historical reality (which by the way is only about 150yrs of the earth’s 4 billion or so years of existence). We just have to remember that the are just ‘models’. In the figures (SPM.4) you provided you will note that the actual rise in temperature observed prior to 1950 was followed by a prolonged fall and flattening of the curve until about 1980, while atmospheric CO2 was dramatically increasing. The more recent rate of rise is of course cause for concern if it continues at that rate for the next 75 years but the model cannot tell us with any certainty that it will, or how much it will change over the next 75 years while atmospheric CO2 will continue rise regardless of what we can do to reduce fossil-fuel or other emissions. \
But anyway, why all this tap-dancing around a very simple question? I just want to know 7 or 8 climate scientists who are cherry-picking data, as you claim they are doing.
