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,
I asked a number of questions, you don’t appear to have answered any of them:
If, as you propose, AGW is a northern hemisphere phenomena why are the [CO2] levels higher in the south than the north?
If CO2 is the driver why are we not seeing the same phenomena globally?
Do you accept that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age existed and were of sufficient magnitude to be recorded?
If CO2/Greenhouse Gasses were the cause [of the MWP], where did they come from?
I have already responded with my ‘technical’ reasons as to why I disagree with Stott’s result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree or disagree with Peter Stott's result, which I cited, of how much the rise in CET since 1950 is due to anthropogenic warming? If you disagree with it, what is your basis?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that your question may be a little simplistic. As the CET dropped around 0.5°C from 1950 to 1970 the natural forcing effects must be significantly stronger than any ‘man made’ effect. If the effects were equal the temperature would have been flat, not dropping. The maximum anthropogenic effect here must therefore be rather less than 50%, 25%???. I don’t therefore consider it to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can expand this with some numbers taken from the CET graphic.
Between 1950 and 1970 the temperature dropped at a rate of -0.3°C Decade.
Between 1975 and 2000 the temperature rose at a rate of 0.5°C Decade.
If we assume that the temperature rise between 1975 and 2000 was entirely anthropogenic, so 0.5°C per decade the natural cooling effect to cause the drop between 1950 and 1970 must be -0.8°C decade which is greater than the anthropogenic warming.
If we make another assumption that only half the temperature rise was anthropogenic, 0.25°C per decade the natural cooling effect must be -0.55°C per decade which is again significantly greater than the warming effect.
The young people demonstrating on Fridays are doing so manifestly because they think that anthropogenic global warming will ruin the world within their lifetimes unless something is done about it, and they don't see the older generations, which more or less run the world with their accumulated wealth and power and politics, doing anything substantial about it. Are they right about that?
Why do they think that AGW will ruin the world in their life times when the actual science and data does not support that? They are fed so much misinformation and misrepresentation of the data (which I am prepared to call lies) by the mainstream media and their own groups. Most of the predictions they are fed are based on the absolute worst case RPC8.5 model. Is that justifiable? They are regularly fed the 7m sea level rise if all the ice on Greenland melts. The current information from The DMI Polar Portal:
‘Based on this data, it can be seen that during the period 2003-2011 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 234 km3 of water per year, corresponding to an annual contribution to the mean increase in sea level of 0.65 mm (Barletta et al. (2013).’
At 0.65mm per year they are unlikely to see a 7m rise in their or their children lifetimes. If the rate remains linear (very unlikely) it would take a mere 10 000.
I don’t think that there is a climate emergency. I do think that there is a climate problem that needs to be addressed in an engineering way with benefit analysis, energy balances and actual resource requirements. I support energy and material saving measures that are realistic.
The various activist groups go around demanding this and that like spoilt teenagers with no clue about the actual impact. There is currently a group in Britain gluing themselves to motorways to demand that the government (read taxpayer) pays to insulate all the social housing. What do they actually want?
Loft insulation which usually has a good payback but is the low hanging fruit and has mostly been installed?
Wall insulation which has a much lower return and can create other problems?
Replacement windows which again has a low rate of return and unless the widows are due to be replaced is wasteful of resources?
At what point are you emitting more greenhouse gasses than you save?
Peter,
I asked a number of questions, you don’t appear to have answered any of them:
If, as you propose, AGW is a northern hemisphere phenomena why are the [CO2] levels higher in the south than the north?
If CO2 is the driver why are we not seeing the same phenomena globally?
Do you accept that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age existed and were of sufficient magnitude to be recorded?
If CO2/Greenhouse Gasses were the cause [of the MWP], where did they come from?
I have already responded with my ‘technical’ reasons as to why I disagree with Stott’s result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree or disagree with Peter Stott's result, which I cited, of how much the rise in CET since 1950 is due to anthropogenic warming? If you disagree with it, what is your basis?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that your question may be a little simplistic. As the CET dropped around 0.5°C from 1950 to 1970 the natural forcing effects must be significantly stronger than any ‘man made’ effect. If the effects were equal the temperature would have been flat, not dropping. The maximum anthropogenic effect here must therefore be rather less than 50%, 25%???. I don’t therefore consider it to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can expand this with some numbers taken from the CET graphic.
Between 1950 and 1970 the temperature dropped at a rate of -0.3°C Decade.
Between 1975 and 2000 the temperature rose at a rate of 0.5°C Decade.
If we assume that the temperature rise between 1975 and 2000 was entirely anthropogenic, so 0.5°C per decade the natural cooling effect to cause the drop between 1950 and 1970 must be -0.8°C decade which is greater than the anthropogenic warming.
If we make another assumption that only half the temperature rise was anthropogenic, 0.25°C per decade the natural cooling effect must be -0.55°C per decade which is again significantly greater than the warming effect.
The young people demonstrating on Fridays are doing so manifestly because they think that anthropogenic global warming will ruin the world within their lifetimes unless something is done about it, and they don't see the older generations, which more or less run the world with their accumulated wealth and power and politics, doing anything substantial about it. Are they right about that?
Why do they think that AGW will ruin the world in their life times when the actual science and data does not support that? They are fed so much misinformation and misrepresentation of the data (which I am prepared to call lies) by the mainstream media and their own groups. Most of the predictions they are fed are based on the absolute worst case RPC8.5 model. Is that justifiable? They are regularly fed the 7m sea level rise if all the ice on Greenland melts. The current information from The DMI Polar Portal:
‘Based on this data, it can be seen that during the period 2003-2011 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 234 km3 of water per year, corresponding to an annual contribution to the mean increase in sea level of 0.65 mm (Barletta et al. (2013).’
At 0.65mm per year they are unlikely to see a 7m rise in their or their children lifetimes. If the rate remains linear (very unlikely) it would take a mere 10 000.
I don’t think that there is a climate emergency. I do think that there is a climate problem that needs to be addressed in an engineering way with benefit analysis, energy balances and actual resource requirements. I support energy and material saving measures that are realistic.
The various activist groups go around demanding this and that like spoilt teenagers with no clue about the actual impact. There is currently a group in Britain gluing themselves to motorways to demand that the government (read taxpayer) pays to insulate all the social housing. What do they actually want?
Loft insulation which usually has a good payback but is the low hanging fruit and has mostly been installed?
Wall insulation which has a much lower return and can create other problems?
Replacement windows which again has a low rate of return and unless the widows are due to be replaced is wasteful of resources?
At what point are you emitting more greenhouse gasses than you save?
