After my last message in this thread, my conversation with David inadvertently went offline and has now been resolved. I have his permission to amend the public record here with this verbatim transcript.
[David]
If you listen to the video or watch the same segment in Inconvenient Truth, the implication is that increasing CO2 leads to increases in temperature, but the data does not show that for the ice core data. Otherwise, I liked that they showed the details of how the samples are taken and analyzed.
I only want scientific data presented accurately so it can be interpreted correctly.
Well, then the atmospheric scientists that monitor weather data trends, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc. should be believed by you. Even the IPCC included the fact that there is no increase in frequency nor severity of these weather events. The narrative that they are increasing is repeated over and over again in the media, by politicians, and clueless scientists, so people believe it to be true.
Otherwise, you can easily get the historic data and see it for yourself. I do this regularly for my course on Energy and the Environment…get the data as far back as I can get and as most recent as available, make a graph, and see what it looks like. Or, you can Google for the data and then select images to see the graphs other people have made.
[John]
So it’s possible that I misunderstood your point which seemed to me to be that the current well-documented and unprecedentedly rapid climate change isn’t happening or, at the very least, doesn’t have anthropogenic origins. If so, I apologize.
Did I?
[David]
Thanks. The current warming trend is about 0.11 C per decade, so that is worrisome and the increased CO2 in the atmosphere must be dealt with, so I did not criticize those aspects of the video.
For a long time, scientists have seen changes in the environment of some kind or another and taken the easy road and just blamed it on global warming/climate change WITHOUT considering other possible explanations. That’s poor science. If we are to sort out what’s going on with climate and improve our models, we really need to address the bult in, very strong bias, and return to being more objective in sorting out facts. That’s why I try to show my students the actual data and trends without the hype that they get in all their other courses from professors that never look at the data and what it tells us.
[John]
Okay, so we are on the same page.
So perhaps one final question:
Because of your concern for accuracy and comportment with the data, may I assume that you point out to your students that there is a perfectly simple explanation for why temperature changes preceded CO2 changes for the last several billion years and why it IS* the other way around now?
(And please note the emphasis on the word “is” since the astonishing spike in CO2 began over a century ago and the correlated spike in temperature has only emerged from the noise over the last several decades.)
[David]
Yes, of course that is discussed as we compare measured global temperatures and both CO2 and methane trends.
[John]
Okay, great. And again I apologize for misinterpreting your point although I hope you will agree that it was a pretty easy misinterpretation to make.
On Oct 27, 2021, at 6:57 AM, John Mallinckrodt <ajm@cpp.edu<mailto:ajm@cpp.edu>> wrote:
David,
I don’t need to do my own research because scientists who DO do the research HAVE done the research and the verdict is now overwhelming and unequivocal.
And regarding your question about my point, it was that it is well understood why temperature changes always preceded CO2 changes until the last couple of centuries and why it is the other way around now. Indeed, all it takes is putting on one’s thinking cap.
So what was YOUR point in calling out the ice core data?