There were 7 peer reviewed scientific papers predicting global cooling in the 1970's.
And 42 predicting global warming.
Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
I can't speak to what you were taught in the classroom by your teacher.
I am wondering if any of those 49 peer-reviewed papers were correct with regard to timeline and impact/magnitude.
CO2 emissions since 1900 have not been static. They have increased, and decreased, though mostly increased. For the times where emissions went way up (see 1939-1945) or way down (See 2020/2021), did atmospheric CO2 follow this? If so, why? If not, why not?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, carbon dioxide increased at the same rate in the atmosphere despite lower emissions, say researchers from campus and JPL; plus, what is good for ozone reduction is bad for methane removal
“We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” says Joshua Laughner, lead author of the study
and a former postdoctoral fellow in the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences who now works at JPL, which Caltech manages for NASA. “To understand what is driving changes to the atmosphere, we must consider how air quality and climate influence each other.”
Published in November 2021 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper developed out of a workshop sponsored by the W. M. Keck Institute for Space Studies and led by scientists on campus and at JPL. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting limitations put on travel and other economic sectors by countries around the globe drastically decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within just a few weeks. However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. While the drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean did not absorb as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has in recent years, probably due to the reduced pressure of carbon dioxide in the air at the ocean’s surface.
“During previous socioeconomic disruptions, like the 1973 oil shortage, you could immediately see a change in the growth rate of CO2,” says David Schimel, head of JPL’s carbon group and a co-author of the study. “We all expected to see it this time, too.”....
... Notably, emissions returned to near pre-pandemic levels by the latter part of 2020, despite reduced activity in many sectors of the economy.
For the above, the predictions and models that are being touted as gospel, were at best, incomplete. It took some tap dancing to rationalize what actually occurred and *loosely* make the observations fit the model/data.
If we couldn't move the needle during Covid, do you really believe these tiny, incremental changes in power generation in a few select countries will offset what is going on in China/India, especially when a great deal of the emission reductions in Europe/US/Aus are being simply moved there? I suspect that moving emission points to a country with low oversight probably does not decrease their emissions.
When I read the above article, I see that the determination was "within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes". Other than being a poor response, it implies that some large part of the data is noise, and not relevant to what we as a species are trying to accomplish. This hardly seems like justification for what is likely the most expensive single infrastructure project in the United States, ever.
I could get behind a project that actually had a budget, a plan for implementation, and a schedule, with progress reports. Giving the powers that be a blank check with no progress requirements, in the current information void is unlikely to meet expectations.
Also, until someone can provide evidence that CO2 (one study is not evidence) is not the consequence of global warming, rather than the opposite, I'm going to remain skeptical. It is tough to handle a problem where the cause is also the effect, depending on who you talk to.
Unfortunately, politicians make hay with confusion, and there's plenty here to go around.