I just reviewed the Vostok core sample data the other day. I’m tired of this controversy, so decided to figure it out for myself. And it took a while to find rational explanations and justified conclusions based on the actual data.
The Antarctic data is geographically different from more recent data, different methods are used, and there are numerous other concerns I have about its relevancy. But I will put this aside and assume the data is accurate. The actual numbers show that CO2 levels during industrial times have skyrocketed, whereas during pre-industrial interglacial periods they rise only a fraction of what they are now.
However, there are two problems.
The first is that if CO2 is the main factor in global warming and cause and effect is even remotely proportionate, most of the ice on planet earth melted years before I was born. There would be almost no snowfall at all, anywhere. Maybe it’s an illusion created by the Republicans to deny global warming is already here? :^P
Secondly, the cause and effect is not only unestablished, but seems reversed. Changes in CO2 levels do not precede changes in global temperatures, but in fact FOLLOW THEM by one to six thousand years. The earth cools, levels go down (eventually); the earth heats up and CO2 levels begin to rise. Really weird.
I by no means have exhausted the topic, but this is the impression I already get:
The scientists who focus on scientific theory instead of politics deal with this problem by admitting they have by no means even a clear list of greenhouse gasses, and do not have any even remotely accurate model whatsoever of global climate (only hypothetical models and vastly underpowered data and processing of that data). There are no conclusions, only more questions and fears based on really rough scenarios, not even in the ballpark of conclusive data.
In fact, based on emission trends and greenhouse theory assumptions, they have no explanation why global warming HAS NOT spiraled out of control, far beyond what you would expect an any other interglacial fluctuation. By many current models and projections, we should have been in big trouble a long time ago. The projections are for the “near future” only because it would be stupid to admit their models show we should already have coastal cities underwater and global droughts, when in fact we do not.
When I was growing up in the 70s, the US had the biggest national debt in history, the big hole in the ozone wasn’t from sunspot activity, saccharin was proven highly carcinogenic, and melting ice caps would put NY City underwater in about ten years.
And people wonder why I don’t worry about the sky falling.