Al Gore’s claim, drawn from climate “science,” that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 stands as a glowing symbol of the absurdity of climate change. Is there any other scientific discipline that makes false predictions 99% of the time?..
Just asking....
It is my belief that Gore is guilty of super-sized date-fagging. At the time he made his statement to induce panic, the earth was in a part of the climate cycle where temperatures were increasing. The panic was supposed to get funding for major expenditures to "fix" the problem, but they failed to generate enough panic to accomplish their goal before the climate cycle started to head back to cooler temperatures that they were planning to use to celebrate their success at "saving the world". AOC tried again more recently with her 10 or 12-year panic. I wish I could remember the actual time line, but by 2030, iirc, the temperatures are supposed to be undeniably cooler. The climate is tied to the superposition of several long period cycles; the one they were attempting to capitalize on is somewhere between 400 and 500 years long, and thus not recognizable by too many living people.
I remember Gore showed the link between CO2 levels and temperature, but failed to prove causality. I believe in actuality that CO2 levels are generally a lagging indicator so it seem unlikely to be the root cause.
Please note that this is all from research that I did years ago and my memory isn't like it used to be. Do your own research if it is important to you. And, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
That makes two of us, then. I graduated from Climate to Politics in 2016! I find the comparisons between the two scams interesting. Both scares based on models. Both based on things you cannot measure yourself. Both have the media on board reporting just one side of any story and ignoring anything off-narrative. Both scams need a global government to step in and fix things all under UN control (i.e. IPCC and WHO). Both scams make money for the chosen few: e.g. Solyndra and Big Pharma.
You are right about the lag. The 420,000 years of Vostok ice core data shows that the temperature changes first and then, about 800 years later, the CO2 levels change to suit.
Somewhere on my bookshelf is a book talking about core ice samples including many pages of data, but all I can remember is that it is a book that I didn't expect to see data like that presented. I have lots of books so I haven't stumbled across it again although I did make a serious attempt one time Gore said something that pissed me off.
Being keen (!?) I located the Vostok data once. The samples are taken at quite sporadic intervals so I used some cubic spline interpolation to create a regular sampling interval and then compared the two time series in Excel. I got 900 years which, considering the amateur approach, I decided was near enough to a confirmation.
The mechanism that might make that a reality is the air heating the sea water. Most of the earth's available CO2 is in the oceans and warmer water holds less CO2 than cold water. So, as the water warms it gives off CO2. I guessed, without evidence, that the volume of water that needed heating was causing the lag.
I forgot to say that I have noticed that "their" playbook seems to repeat a lot.