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.
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.
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.
Do you merely spout dogma or do you actually think?
Normally, I wouldn't reply to such a piece of abuse. I don't correspond with people who are abusive.
However, it seems worthwhile for me to say where I think the discussion is at.
I previously asked a number of questions, you don’t appear to have answered any of them:
You can ask me a hundred questions, or a million questions, about climate science. So what?
There was a discussion of Karoly and Stott's paper on the warming showing on the CET. They described the CET data. You described the CET data in a manner which seems to be incompatible. I suggested that needed explanation, since you are looking at the exact same data set.
I have already responded with my ‘technical’ reasons as to why I disagree with Stott’s result.
First, it's not the result that came in question. It is the description of the data. Your comments explaining why you disagree with Karol and Stott's observations about the data made no sense to me. They still don't. I don't see you engaging with that work in any way which is likely to lead to a resolution.
The issue is this.
1.Human activity is putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of some 50+ bn CO2 equivalent tonnes per year.
2.The greenhouse effect has been known and understood for some 200 years.
3.The result of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming.
4. So how big is the warming associated with the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?
Your answer to #4 seems to be that it is negligible. There is a 120 year old result that, very far from being negligible, it is a few degrees C°. This has been considerably refined, largely since the 1960's, but has been confirmed as generally accurate. Two climate physicists have just been awarded the Nobel Prize for their contributions to this effort. The Nobel committee considers global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions as “prove[n].”
In various interchanges you have been unable to come up with any story of your own which contradicts the judgement of the Nobel committee as well as the overwhelming majority of (seriou) climate scientists as to why you think the answer to #4 is negligible. I don't feel inclined to carry on playing forum ring-a-ring-a-roses on this. Either you can come up with such a story or you can't. Given the history so far, I think probably you can't.
So I don't see the discussion with you progressing.
Furthermore, you called people such as myself and the majority of climate scientists liars, in your title to this thread. I think that is morally reprehensible. I am rather surprised you haven't been sanctioned by the IET for such comments.
Basing climate change forecasting on simplistic CO2 based models is not very helpful and results in the ridiculous hype that the world will burn up in 30 years’ time that prompted this thread.
‘Furthermore, you called people such as myself and the majority of climate scientists liars, in your title to this thread. I think that is morally reprehensible. I am rather surprised you haven't been sanctioned by the IET for such comments.’
Where have I called you and most climate scientists liars? If you read the thread I have challenged the lies and hype from climate activists which bears no resemblance to the science in the IPCC reports, for example using RPC8.5 as the norm. I have also qualified this by noting it only applies if the BBC article itself is correct.
Roger Bryant: Where have I called you and most climate scientists liars? If you read the thread I have challenged the lies and hype from climate activists which bears no resemblance to the science in the IPCC reports, for example using RPC8.5 as the norm.
That caught my eye in today's mailbox and inspired sharing some relevant information in another posting. Obviously someone has made rather illogical accusations; hopefully the climate inquisition is still at bay ;)
An interesting article was recently published in Nature that may provide some colour to the "99% CAGW consensus":
Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming "Nature conducted an anonymous survey of the 233 living IPCC authors last month and received responses from 92 scientists — about 40% of the group. Most of the survey’s respondents — 88% — said they think global warming constitutes a ‘crisis’, and nearly as many said they expect to see catastrophic impacts of climate change in their lifetimes."
1. Only 88% out of 92 IPCC scientists who cared to respond think global warming constitutes a ‘crisis’, 81 individuals. Such result seems to be quite different from alleged 99% consensus on CAGW emergency, even surprising, considering the company where one would expect a 100% consensus.
2. Hypothetically, the scientists who responded may likely be the ones interested in actively pushing the IPCC agenda and leaning towards supporting the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. In such case, consensus among IPCC scientists regarding CAGW could be within the range 35% to 88%.
Although these thoughts are certainly not a scientific analysis, perhaps they can calm those who believe that all IPCC scientists stand behind the ‘climate crisis’ propaganda.
The science parts of NASA also sometimes disagree with the political parts:
The monthly graph shows very little temperature rise from 2000 with a decrease from around the start of 2020. This bears little resembalance to the ‘headline’ graph they post on their Climate Change pages.
