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.
Aivar Usk:
"... the flux changes from doubling the concentrations of greenhouse gases, a very substantial change, reduces the radiation to space by only a few Wm-2. This is only a few per cent of the several hundred Wm-2 in the natural flux to space, or the 91 Wm-2 change of solar flux between winter and summer. And cloud cover ... further diminishes the influence of greenhouse gases. It
is very hard to convince people with technical common sense that such small changes will have any harmful consequences."Would you agree with that? If not, what is your basis for counterargument?
Another assertion about climate. Good. Takes us up to 3.
No, I don't agree with it.
He seems to be right about “few” W/m^2 – Houghton Figure 3.13 gives radiative forcing estimates in 2011 relative to 1750. The total anthropogenic RF in 1950 was 0.57 (90% CI 0.29 to 0.85); 1980: 1.25 (90% CI 0.64 to 1.86); 2011 2.29 (90% CI 1.13 to 3.33) all W/m^2.
But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, Fifth Edition (Cambridge U.P, 2015) It shows, from 1870 to 2010, the global surface temperature, the solar contribution to that, the volcanic contribution to that, the internal variability (mostly related to ENSO), and then the anthropogenic component (the rest). It is about 0.9°C, and over half of that has been since about 1982.
[PBL]. ... There are a few climate scientists who continue to disagree with major results, such as the Hockey Stick. A few.
[AU]Depends on what exactly "a few" means
Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.
Aivar Usk:
"... the flux changes from doubling the concentrations of greenhouse gases, a very substantial change, reduces the radiation to space by only a few Wm-2. This is only a few per cent of the several hundred Wm-2 in the natural flux to space, or the 91 Wm-2 change of solar flux between winter and summer. And cloud cover ... further diminishes the influence of greenhouse gases. It
is very hard to convince people with technical common sense that such small changes will have any harmful consequences."Would you agree with that? If not, what is your basis for counterargument?
Another assertion about climate. Good. Takes us up to 3.
No, I don't agree with it.
He seems to be right about “few” W/m^2 – Houghton Figure 3.13 gives radiative forcing estimates in 2011 relative to 1750. The total anthropogenic RF in 1950 was 0.57 (90% CI 0.29 to 0.85); 1980: 1.25 (90% CI 0.64 to 1.86); 2011 2.29 (90% CI 1.13 to 3.33) all W/m^2.
But he is wrong about its effect. Check out Figure 4.4 of Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, Fifth Edition (Cambridge U.P, 2015) It shows, from 1870 to 2010, the global surface temperature, the solar contribution to that, the volcanic contribution to that, the internal variability (mostly related to ENSO), and then the anthropogenic component (the rest). It is about 0.9°C, and over half of that has been since about 1982.
[PBL]. ... There are a few climate scientists who continue to disagree with major results, such as the Hockey Stick. A few.
[AU]Depends on what exactly "a few" means
Check out Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Oreskes and Conway: Merchants of Doom; Mann, The New Climate War; Stott, Hot Air. The names are all there. Also read what poor arguments they have mostly advanced.
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
