If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
"As a rhetorical measure, inviting people to watch a one-hour video and criticise it is not very persuasive. Why don't you summarise the arguments for us in, say, a five-minute read?"
Thank you for that kind offer, but I doubt whether such extensive summary coming from me would make a difference among the believers; the best way for educated people is to listen to the arguments and have them processed within own brain to decide whether they are convincing or not. I can provide some of the key statements of Dr. Hayden's presentation, though:
Doubling of atmospheric CO2 will add to GHG radiative forcing about 3.5 W/m2 = 2.2% increase, just a nudge! Surface will radiate 401.5 W/m2 instead of the current 398 W/m2, causing additional warming of 0.75 degC or 0.6 degC according to Stefan-Boltzmann law. 4x positive-feedback amplification (heat causing heat) is not plausible, "tipping points" have not occurred. It is widely accepted that Milankovitch cycles have caused temperature changes in recent 400kY timeframe before humans entered the stage, but there are no explanations anywhere about how do they influence atmospheric CO2 (/brains: on)?
"If you are talking about people, and (I take it) criticising them for not being knowledgeable, then that is a prima facie case of an ad hominem argument. (It doesn't get much clearer than that.)"
I would humbly recommend to check the argumentum ad hominem definition. A friendly observation: in the context of this thread, one might suggest that bringing in certain Great Barrington Declaration is a classic example of an ad hominem argument - guilt by association.
"I take it that the suggestion here is that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to global warming is negligible? If there are arguments for that, why don't you give them? "
I had no intention to start debating the basics within this thread. Since I am not a scientist researching relevant topics, I can point you to the sources for such information - for instance, here one can find pointers to climate research and media articles form both the "realist" and "orthodox" lairs, summarized on the weekly basis:
sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm
The only "weekend research" I performed myself was checking the atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement data from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa to see whether the COVID-19 related significant reduction in output of anthropogenic CO2 in early 2020 shows up on monthly changes. Nothing remarkable in comparison with earlier years; graph of 2016-2020 monthly changes is attached, giving a picture of how fast seasonal fluctuations are registered. Note the oulier 2016 - that was a strong El Nino year that boosted global temperature.
I would also remind the ClimateGate - these revelations had only short-lived positive effect on cleaning up the climate science but should not be forgotten:
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
"As a rhetorical measure, inviting people to watch a one-hour video and criticise it is not very persuasive. Why don't you summarise the arguments for us in, say, a five-minute read?"
Thank you for that kind offer, but I doubt whether such extensive summary coming from me would make a difference among the believers; the best way for educated people is to listen to the arguments and have them processed within own brain to decide whether they are convincing or not. I can provide some of the key statements of Dr. Hayden's presentation, though:
Doubling of atmospheric CO2 will add to GHG radiative forcing about 3.5 W/m2 = 2.2% increase, just a nudge! Surface will radiate 401.5 W/m2 instead of the current 398 W/m2, causing additional warming of 0.75 degC or 0.6 degC according to Stefan-Boltzmann law. 4x positive-feedback amplification (heat causing heat) is not plausible, "tipping points" have not occurred. It is widely accepted that Milankovitch cycles have caused temperature changes in recent 400kY timeframe before humans entered the stage, but there are no explanations anywhere about how do they influence atmospheric CO2 (/brains: on)?
"If you are talking about people, and (I take it) criticising them for not being knowledgeable, then that is a prima facie case of an ad hominem argument. (It doesn't get much clearer than that.)"
I would humbly recommend to check the argumentum ad hominem definition. A friendly observation: in the context of this thread, one might suggest that bringing in certain Great Barrington Declaration is a classic example of an ad hominem argument - guilt by association.
"I take it that the suggestion here is that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to global warming is negligible? If there are arguments for that, why don't you give them? "
I had no intention to start debating the basics within this thread. Since I am not a scientist researching relevant topics, I can point you to the sources for such information - for instance, here one can find pointers to climate research and media articles form both the "realist" and "orthodox" lairs, summarized on the weekly basis:
sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm
The only "weekend research" I performed myself was checking the atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement data from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa to see whether the COVID-19 related significant reduction in output of anthropogenic CO2 in early 2020 shows up on monthly changes. Nothing remarkable in comparison with earlier years; graph of 2016-2020 monthly changes is attached, giving a picture of how fast seasonal fluctuations are registered. Note the oulier 2016 - that was a strong El Nino year that boosted global temperature.
I would also remind the ClimateGate - these revelations had only short-lived positive effect on cleaning up the climate science but should not be forgotten:
