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:
Do note the word “prove”. I find it sad that we have people around who still doubt the results of a piece of Nobel-prize-winning physics from decades ago.
I would think that using the word "prove" was not proper in the quoted text; when results of the climate models cannot be verified using actual data, such models prove nothing. Many scientists have criticised inaccuracy of IPCC climate models; only the INM-CM4-8 of the latest collection is found to produce meaningful results - produced by scientists from a country that does not take CAGW seriously.
It is interesting to note that French physicist Joseph Fourier who was mentioned in the quoted source actually "did not use the term "greenhouse" in his 1824 publication, but he described the temperature of the Earth as being controlled by three distinct sources: (1) solar radiation, which was considered unequally distributed over the year and which produces the diversity of climates; (2) the temperature communicated by the interplanetary space irradiated by the light from innumerable stars; and (3) heat from the interior of Earth, assumed to be remaining from its formation (Fleming 1998)" as reported by Dr. Humlum.
Although the GHE exists, Fourier was obviously right about those three factors: solar variability and orbital variations have complex effects, space radiation does control forming of the clouds (Stensmark, Shaviv) while in addition to cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, underwater volcanism has significant heating effect that is most visible in the polar regions (and very likely releases lots of CO2). Surprisingly, the IPCC reports ignore the latter, consider only the cooling effect of volcanism, although the AR6 WGI SPM states "... but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss" (A.1.5). "There is low confidence in the projected decrease of Antarctic sea ice." (B.2.5) Imagine the historic effect of one million submarine volcanoes with the average cooking power similar to the one identified under the Antarctic Pine Island Glacier, ~2500 ± 1700 MW.
Regarding Nobel-prize-winning scientists in physics: I would recommend a short lecture by professor Ivar Giaever (29:35, 2015) - should we doubt him?
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Do note the word “prove”. I find it sad that we have people around who still doubt the results of a piece of Nobel-prize-winning physics from decades ago.
I would think that using the word "prove" was not proper in the quoted text; when results of the climate models cannot be verified using actual data, such models prove nothing. Many scientists have criticised inaccuracy of IPCC climate models; only the INM-CM4-8 of the latest collection is found to produce meaningful results - produced by scientists from a country that does not take CAGW seriously.
It is interesting to note that French physicist Joseph Fourier who was mentioned in the quoted source actually "did not use the term "greenhouse" in his 1824 publication, but he described the temperature of the Earth as being controlled by three distinct sources: (1) solar radiation, which was considered unequally distributed over the year and which produces the diversity of climates; (2) the temperature communicated by the interplanetary space irradiated by the light from innumerable stars; and (3) heat from the interior of Earth, assumed to be remaining from its formation (Fleming 1998)" as reported by Dr. Humlum.
Although the GHE exists, Fourier was obviously right about those three factors: solar variability and orbital variations have complex effects, space radiation does control forming of the clouds (Stensmark, Shaviv) while in addition to cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, underwater volcanism has significant heating effect that is most visible in the polar regions (and very likely releases lots of CO2). Surprisingly, the IPCC reports ignore the latter, consider only the cooling effect of volcanism, although the AR6 WGI SPM states "... but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss" (A.1.5). "There is low confidence in the projected decrease of Antarctic sea ice." (B.2.5) Imagine the historic effect of one million submarine volcanoes with the average cooking power similar to the one identified under the Antarctic Pine Island Glacier, ~2500 ± 1700 MW.
Regarding Nobel-prize-winning scientists in physics: I would recommend a short lecture by professor Ivar Giaever (29:35, 2015) - should we doubt him?
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
