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,
Do you merely spout dogma or do you actually think?
I previously 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.
Do you accept this or will you just use your normal response of telling me to get it published?
I also posted excerpts and a link to a piece by Judith Curry analysing the increased uncertainty in the technical details of AR6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I’ve been reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report. The authors are to be congratulated for preparing a document that is vastly more intellectually sophisticated than its recent predecessors. Topics like ‘deep uncertainty,’ model ‘fitness-for-purpose’ (common topics at Climate Etc.) actually get significant mention in the AR6. Further, natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
More specifically, observationally-based estimates of ECS were substantially lower than the climate model values.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you accept her commentary?
She also gave an interesting presentation to the New Jersey Conference on Energy and Decarbonization.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/22/challenges-of-the-clean-energy-transition/
This follows my views quite closely in that we have a climate problem, not a climate emergency, and that our actions need to be carefully considered not to create further damage to the environment.
Peter,
Do you merely spout dogma or do you actually think?
I previously 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.
Do you accept this or will you just use your normal response of telling me to get it published?
I also posted excerpts and a link to a piece by Judith Curry analysing the increased uncertainty in the technical details of AR6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I’ve been reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report. The authors are to be congratulated for preparing a document that is vastly more intellectually sophisticated than its recent predecessors. Topics like ‘deep uncertainty,’ model ‘fitness-for-purpose’ (common topics at Climate Etc.) actually get significant mention in the AR6. Further, natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
More specifically, observationally-based estimates of ECS were substantially lower than the climate model values.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you accept her commentary?
She also gave an interesting presentation to the New Jersey Conference on Energy and Decarbonization.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/22/challenges-of-the-clean-energy-transition/
This follows my views quite closely in that we have a climate problem, not a climate emergency, and that our actions need to be carefully considered not to create further damage to the environment.
