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:
Nonsense, of course. A simple example. Suppose I ask each and every one of these models “2+2=??” I bet they are all going to give me the answer 4.
Yet that is exactly my problem at trusting the IPCC climate models: as several scientists have demonstrated using hindcasting, when asking each and every one of these models “2+2=??”, the answers of IPCC CMIP5 and CMIP6 models seem to be “2+2=5” at best but “2+2=9” in many cases while we know it should be “2+2=4” due to existing measurement data.
Once again, my opinion is based on competent sources - the latest is an article "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers" by R. McKitrick and J. Christy, published on 15 July 2020.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../2020EA001281
The authors conclude:
"The literature drawing attention to an upward bias in climate model warming responses in the tropical troposphere extends back at least 15 years now (Karl et al., 2006). Rather than being resolved, the problem has become worse, since now every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics. The models with lower ECS values have warming rates somewhat closer to observed but are still significantly biased upward and do not overlap observations. Models with higher ECS values also have higher tropospheric warming rates, and applying the emergent constraint concept implies that an ensemble of models with warming rates consistent with observations would likely have to have ECS values at or below the bottom of the CMIP6 range. Our findings mirror recent evidence from inspection of CMIP6 ECSs (Voosen, 2019) and paleoclimate simulations (Zhu et al., 2020), which also reveal a systematic warm bias in the latest generation of climate models."
It is worth looking into Table 2 that presents Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) values and origins of the models. It may come as a surprise to many that while models from Canada and UK are parading ECS in the range of 5.3 to 5.6, some are close to the almost reasonable range within 1.8 to 2.5. IPCC seems to be diluting the differences of positions of corresponding research groups engraved into these values by presenting only multi-model means of CMIP6 runs (at least in AR6 WGI TS).
BTW, I might as well say that I am more than half convinced you are a bot.
I sometimes wish I was, considering where the world seems to be heading in the departments of freedom of speech, political correctness, etc. Nevertheless, perhaps that statement provides a hint of your analytical capabilities, explaining why you refuse to consider any climate science missing the IPCC brand-marks worth of reckoning ?
Interesting. You offer “alternative views” on climate science by various people with credentials you carefully enumerate. Who could have credentials better than the Nobel Committee? Yeet here, somehow, they don't count…………
I agree on the point that professor Ivar Giaever was not decorated with the Nobel Prize as a climate scientist, if that is what you mean. Nevertheless, while various journalists, politicians and self-appointed shady "experts" may offer great entertainment to some extent, I tend to trust scientists with proven sharp brain capabilities and long term physics experience when my own processing cannot detect faults of logic in their reasoning. It is hard to imagine that such persons would knowingly lie, particularly during congressional testimonies that would undoubtedly end up badly for them.
science.house.gov/.../Christy Testimony_1.pdf
defyccc.com/.../
www.epw.senate.gov/.../01AFD79733D77F24A71FEF9DAFCCB056.22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdf
I simply cannot figure out what their motivation to lie would be - none of them strike me as evil sociopaths, most are of professor emeritus status and need no attention or funding. They must be acting out of the inner drive to speak the truth, as I prefer to think.
I noticed that I accidentally provided a wrong link to a report by Dr. Humlum that discussed Fourier's theory at the end, it was in the December 2020 report. Since I visited his website, I borrowed his latest graph showing the sea ice extent 1980-2021 based on NSIDC monitoring data. Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice seems to be recovering after the strong 2016 El Nino, undisturbed by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Nonsense, of course. A simple example. Suppose I ask each and every one of these models “2+2=??” I bet they are all going to give me the answer 4.
Yet that is exactly my problem at trusting the IPCC climate models: as several scientists have demonstrated using hindcasting, when asking each and every one of these models “2+2=??”, the answers of IPCC CMIP5 and CMIP6 models seem to be “2+2=5” at best but “2+2=9” in many cases while we know it should be “2+2=4” due to existing measurement data.
Once again, my opinion is based on competent sources - the latest is an article "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers" by R. McKitrick and J. Christy, published on 15 July 2020.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../2020EA001281
The authors conclude:
"The literature drawing attention to an upward bias in climate model warming responses in the tropical troposphere extends back at least 15 years now (Karl et al., 2006). Rather than being resolved, the problem has become worse, since now every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics. The models with lower ECS values have warming rates somewhat closer to observed but are still significantly biased upward and do not overlap observations. Models with higher ECS values also have higher tropospheric warming rates, and applying the emergent constraint concept implies that an ensemble of models with warming rates consistent with observations would likely have to have ECS values at or below the bottom of the CMIP6 range. Our findings mirror recent evidence from inspection of CMIP6 ECSs (Voosen, 2019) and paleoclimate simulations (Zhu et al., 2020), which also reveal a systematic warm bias in the latest generation of climate models."
It is worth looking into Table 2 that presents Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) values and origins of the models. It may come as a surprise to many that while models from Canada and UK are parading ECS in the range of 5.3 to 5.6, some are close to the almost reasonable range within 1.8 to 2.5. IPCC seems to be diluting the differences of positions of corresponding research groups engraved into these values by presenting only multi-model means of CMIP6 runs (at least in AR6 WGI TS).
BTW, I might as well say that I am more than half convinced you are a bot.
I sometimes wish I was, considering where the world seems to be heading in the departments of freedom of speech, political correctness, etc. Nevertheless, perhaps that statement provides a hint of your analytical capabilities, explaining why you refuse to consider any climate science missing the IPCC brand-marks worth of reckoning ?
Interesting. You offer “alternative views” on climate science by various people with credentials you carefully enumerate. Who could have credentials better than the Nobel Committee? Yeet here, somehow, they don't count…………
I agree on the point that professor Ivar Giaever was not decorated with the Nobel Prize as a climate scientist, if that is what you mean. Nevertheless, while various journalists, politicians and self-appointed shady "experts" may offer great entertainment to some extent, I tend to trust scientists with proven sharp brain capabilities and long term physics experience when my own processing cannot detect faults of logic in their reasoning. It is hard to imagine that such persons would knowingly lie, particularly during congressional testimonies that would undoubtedly end up badly for them.
science.house.gov/.../Christy Testimony_1.pdf
defyccc.com/.../
www.epw.senate.gov/.../01AFD79733D77F24A71FEF9DAFCCB056.22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdf
I simply cannot figure out what their motivation to lie would be - none of them strike me as evil sociopaths, most are of professor emeritus status and need no attention or funding. They must be acting out of the inner drive to speak the truth, as I prefer to think.
I noticed that I accidentally provided a wrong link to a report by Dr. Humlum that discussed Fourier's theory at the end, it was in the December 2020 report. Since I visited his website, I borrowed his latest graph showing the sea ice extent 1980-2021 based on NSIDC monitoring data. Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice seems to be recovering after the strong 2016 El Nino, undisturbed by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
