No there is no risk whatsoever of sudden warming or a hothouse Earth.
BLOG: Earth can’t warm suddenly
— no temperature tipping point
— radiates so much extra heat with each extra 1°C of warming
— it can’t trap or absorb it all
— even with all possible feedbacks at their max
You can read it here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/earth-cant-warm-suddenly-no-temperature
Even if we burnt ALL our fossil fuels we couldn’t get to a hothouse Earth.
I cover that at the end here
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Debunked-Global-warming-IS-NOT-a-terrifying-apocalyptic-scenario-NO-RISK-OF-ANYTHING-LIKE-VENUS-MISTAKEN-story-in-t
Peter Carter’s only relevant qualification is that he was a GP in the UK for 40 years. He is not a climate scientist.
Peter Carter describes himself as a registered expert reviewer. All this means is that he told the IPCC that he has a relevant qualification of some sort and wants to comment on the reports. They will only check that he has this qualification that has to be relevant to some tiny part of the entire report, and then will approve him to comment on their reports because they want as wide a range of comments as possible.
And then all the IPCC authors are required to do is to publish an answer to these public comments - the reply can be as short as one word if they want - they do NOT need to include anything from any of the commenters in the reports.
The IPCC say explicitly that “having been a registered expert reviewer does not by itself serve as a qualification of the expert or support their credibility in a different context.”
QUOTE Because the aim of the expert review is to get the widest possible participation and broadest possible expertise, those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification.
…
Expert reviewers may submit comments on one sentence or section of a report, or a whole chapter of the full report. They may consider scientific substance or the structure of the report. Often they will point out a published paper that the report authors may not have included in their assessment, but which could be relevant.
…
Expert reviewers who submit comments are credited by name in the final report for their contribution. Such comments are a vital contribution to the quality of the assessment. But because the review is essentially open to all through a self-declaration of expertise, it follows that having been a registered expert reviewer does not by itself serve as a qualification of the expert or support their credibility in a different context.
https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/
So it is a very low bar. You can be accepted as an expert reviewer of some small part of the report unless you have no relevant qualification. Expert reviewers don’t write the reports, they submit comments on it and it’s up to the authors of the report whether they pay any attention to the comments or not. Some of the comments may be misinformed / meaningless so they would ignore those.
So all it means is he told the IPCC he’s an expert. He has a relevant qualification so they let him comment on the IPCC reports. It does NOT mean they even acted on any of his comments.
If you are a GP you have a relevant qualification to comment on matters to do with health in the reports.
That is based on his own self description here:
Peter Carter, M.D. is a retired family physician who practiced medicine first in England and then on both coasts of Canada for almost 40 years.
Not only impossible to ever reach a hothouse Earth. In reality because of the huge surges in renewables recently we are ahead of target for triple renewables by 2030 which is one way to stay within 1.5. C
BLOG: We are ahead of target for 1.5 C with the COP28 triple renewables pledge
— media and academics lag far behind what’s happening in the real world when they claim we are headed for 2.6 C
You can read it here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/world-is-overachieving-for-15-c-with
