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.
Jon Steward:
dcbwhaley:
[] We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change….
Um, we are very much 100% certain. The (technical part of the) discussion here has been about the extent of anthropogenic effects, not whether there are any.
Um. I disagree.
Oh dear! I didn't think I would have to spell it out in detail for this audience, but here goes.
Proof.
Your house has heating, very likely gas, or oil, or electricity, and of course formerly there was coal. Using any of these to heat your house has resulted and results in production of gases and aerosols, amongst them unavoidably greenhouse gases, notably CO2.
Cars and trucks travel along the road outside your house. Except for the electric ones, of which there won't be many, they produce CO2 and NO2, unavoidably, each and every one.
The farm animals, the cows, in the field behind your house produce CH4.
In the past (and much more than in the present), humans have discharged CFCs into the atmosphere (as I have noted before).
All these are greenhouse gases being produced by human activity. QED.
The question concerns the extent of the effects of this production, not whether it exists.
Roger has given you enough facts and figures to totally discredit your thinking.
Actually, the facts and figures given come all out of public documents. What he has been trying to do is show how these somehow don't fit together. Let's list what I think have been the issues.
He wants to say that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 production to the greenhouse effect of CO2 in our current atmosphere is negligible. He hasn't produced any argument for that, let alone any figures - he's just said it. (I can say “2+2=5” - it doesn't make it so.) For actual figures, one can look in any reputable textbook on climate. Say, Barry and Chorley, continuously in print since 1968, when questions about anthropogenic climate change were just starting to arise (my edition is the 6th, from 1992. I understand they are up to the 9th now).
Roger contradicts Karoly and Stott's description of the CET figures as showing a 1° rise since 1950. Given that this is one data set, either K&S are right, or Roger is right, but not both. As far as I see, K&S's description is right. That means Roger is wrong.
He compares some graphs from AR5 and AR6 which purport to show more or less the same thing. He has asserted they are different, and contradict each other. I don't see that; they look very similar to me.
He seems to want to say that northern-hemispherical phenomena, resp. southern-hemispherical effects are not “global”. If he wants to say that, fine, that is just a matter of how one uses words, not any fact about our globe or how its climate is changing.
He doesn't like the “hockey stick”. As far as I can tell, that is one of the most queried, recalculated and reproduced pieces of data research in the whole field of climate science. There might be quibbles about parts of it. But I don't any technical reason to reject it completely, as he does, and he hasn't given any.
And then he has criticised the presentation of a graph because of a labelling of an axis, which I find trivial.
Have I missed anything?
Jon Steward:
dcbwhaley:
[] We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change….
Um, we are very much 100% certain. The (technical part of the) discussion here has been about the extent of anthropogenic effects, not whether there are any.
Um. I disagree.
Oh dear! I didn't think I would have to spell it out in detail for this audience, but here goes.
Proof.
Your house has heating, very likely gas, or oil, or electricity, and of course formerly there was coal. Using any of these to heat your house has resulted and results in production of gases and aerosols, amongst them unavoidably greenhouse gases, notably CO2.
Cars and trucks travel along the road outside your house. Except for the electric ones, of which there won't be many, they produce CO2 and NO2, unavoidably, each and every one.
The farm animals, the cows, in the field behind your house produce CH4.
In the past (and much more than in the present), humans have discharged CFCs into the atmosphere (as I have noted before).
All these are greenhouse gases being produced by human activity. QED.
The question concerns the extent of the effects of this production, not whether it exists.
Roger has given you enough facts and figures to totally discredit your thinking.
Actually, the facts and figures given come all out of public documents. What he has been trying to do is show how these somehow don't fit together. Let's list what I think have been the issues.
He wants to say that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 production to the greenhouse effect of CO2 in our current atmosphere is negligible. He hasn't produced any argument for that, let alone any figures - he's just said it. (I can say “2+2=5” - it doesn't make it so.) For actual figures, one can look in any reputable textbook on climate. Say, Barry and Chorley, continuously in print since 1968, when questions about anthropogenic climate change were just starting to arise (my edition is the 6th, from 1992. I understand they are up to the 9th now).
Roger contradicts Karoly and Stott's description of the CET figures as showing a 1° rise since 1950. Given that this is one data set, either K&S are right, or Roger is right, but not both. As far as I see, K&S's description is right. That means Roger is wrong.
He compares some graphs from AR5 and AR6 which purport to show more or less the same thing. He has asserted they are different, and contradict each other. I don't see that; they look very similar to me.
He seems to want to say that northern-hemispherical phenomena, resp. southern-hemispherical effects are not “global”. If he wants to say that, fine, that is just a matter of how one uses words, not any fact about our globe or how its climate is changing.
He doesn't like the “hockey stick”. As far as I can tell, that is one of the most queried, recalculated and reproduced pieces of data research in the whole field of climate science. There might be quibbles about parts of it. But I don't any technical reason to reject it completely, as he does, and he hasn't given any.
And then he has criticised the presentation of a graph because of a labelling of an axis, which I find trivial.
Have I missed anything?
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
