This Candidate for Governor's Plan for Climate Change

The Seattle Times July 24th front page article “How the candidates for governor plan to tackle climate issues” neglected to query my candidacy.  If they had my response would have been strong support for Initiatives 2066 and 2117 for several reasons.   First, is that prior to the Climate Commitment Acts passage in 2021 Washington’s CO2 made up only 1.56% of the country’s 11.19%  of planets.  Thus, any climate benefits from rejecting the initiatives are limited to reducing Washington’s 0.17456% of  global CO2 emissions. 

Even more important is the question as to whether anthroprogenic (APG) CO2 emissions increase global temperatures.  An April 2007 Scientific American article, “The Physical Science behind Climate Change” was one of the seminal proponents.  It used the failure of computer models to match measured temperatures unless the “forcing function” (influence) of  APG was ten times that of changes from the Sun.  That assumption was the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Asseessment Reports of the need to reduce CO2 emissions to reduce global warming

However a July 19th,  "Watts Up With That" Internet Report "Causality Analysis Finds Temperature Changes Have Determined CO2 Changes Since The Phanerozoic" includes the following: 

A comprehensive new study details a stochastic assessment determination of the sequencing of CO2 variations versus temperature variations since the 1950s, over the last 2,000 years (the Common Era), and throughout the last 541 million years.

The robust conclusion is that the causality direction – with the understanding that causes lead and effects lag – clearly shows the temperature changes lead and CO2 changes lag on yearly, decadal, and centennial/millennial scales. In other words, “the reverse causality direction [CO2]→T should be excluded.”

The claim that CO2 increases drive temperature changes is thus a “narrative” only, as the claim that “humans, through their emissions by fossil fuel burning, are responsible for the changes we see in climate” can be regarded as a “non-scientific issue.”

A far more “scientific” explanation of what a 4/30/20 post on this blog, “Ice-Core Results Debunk IPCC Global Warming Concerns” concluded from ice core CO2 levels lagging behind temperatures. 

This “feedback” assessment may or may not be a rational explanation for CO2 lag during the warming.  How does  “feedback” explain the subsequent drop in CO2 from 290 ppm to 230 ppm over the next 25,000 years.  The only rational reason for the drop is reducing temperature increases CO2 dispersion into the ocean.  This rationale is supported by CO2 lagging temperature 10 deg C cooling.

 

Again the only rational reason for cooling for all five interglacial periods has to be that lower global temperatures increase dispersion into ocean.  Thus it’s “likely” the increase in CO2 in atmosphere is due to increased out gassing from ocean with higher temperatures.

 

The bottom line is this candidate for governor would “tackle climate change” by pointing out “the benefits of passing any benefit from the CCA is limited to reducing Washington’s 0.1745% of the planet's.  That there is no need to meet the “Clean Energy Transformation Act”, reduce green-house gas emissions, or spend millions on renewable clean energy. That passing Initiatives 2066 and 2177 will have absolutely no impact on global temperatures and save millions and allow natural gas in our homes.