You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion
What is net zero and why is it necessary?
Former Community Member
Decarbonising quickly and effectively to hit our net-zero target by 2050 requires urgent, clear and decisive leadership. Our short video looks at the skills requirements for delivering this target and breaks down the results from our recent Skills for net zero and a green recovery survey. Watch the video and sign in to let us know your thoughts in the comments!
Thank you for pointing out my misreading the graph data.
There are scientists and researchers conducting their own monitoring of annual temperature rise and GHG emissions, the data they gathered shows a continuous rise in temperature with no sign of reversal.
Simon, there certainly was a pause as noted by those notorious climate deniers IPCC AR5 Working Group 1. As it notes, ‘The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05°C/decade) has been smaller than since 1951 (0.12°C/decade). If you then look at the NASA GISS GISSTEMP v4 Monthly Mean Global Surface Temperature the temperature anomalies are fairly flat from 1998 up to around 2015. They then rise rapidly reaching a peak in 2016 and start to drop back again. The current temperatures are not much above the 1998 -2015 level. Are these data sources acceptable to you? Do you prefer to listen to XR?
Tony, see my response above. The climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. A little warming is certainly better than a little cooling. Read the literature on life during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Which would you prefer?
The weather changes from year to year. Solar activity, El Niño / La Niña, volcanoes and so on all have their effect. But whenever we get a couple of years in a row where it's not hotter than the previous year, and it's an "unexplained pause" and the climate scientists have all got it completely wrong.
It is true that a few months of discontinued warming is inconclusive from the point of forecasting climate change, but missing continuity of correlation between steadily raising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and fluctuating temperature dynamics in the XX century as well as after the warm El Nini year 2016 should make one asking questions - is the CO2 truly the main control knob for the climate? Same goes for 400+ MY of palaeoclimatology results.
For persons free to use their own brains and willing to look into analysis of publicly available climate data I can recommend reports prepared monthly by professor emeritus Ole Humlum - anyone can look at the same data sources and tell him where he went wrong:
A recent highly educational disussion in most civilized manner between two professors representing different lairs on climate science is also highly recommended:
" A debate between climate optimist John Christy (University of Alabama, Huntsville) and climate pessimist Kerry Emanuel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), hosted by Russ Roberts of EconTalk, found agreement that climate science is far from settled." https://www.aier.org/article/climate-co2-optimism/
