So, it took me the entire day, and this may the last time I ever do this, but I went over this denialist wordvomit line by line:
Wow. Just wow. Well done!
For some reason, the link does not work for me.
Hmm, I guess they must've taken it down. Unfortunately I couldn't find a copy, but here's
a skepticalscience article that deals with this and various other such issues. You can find most of those stats there. They use the 2% response figure from a denialist article that explicitly stated that 1,077 of the 51,000 surveyed responded.
I should point out that these kinds of badly controlled surveys have done the rounds before... I did once do my own random sample of about 100 signatures from the infamous Oregon Petition
(which had only 31,000 signatures!), and found that most of the signatories were bachelors degrees, many of them in fields completely unrelated to climate science (and several having obvious prank names). IIRC I found exactly zero publishing climate scientists (though there were a couple of economist PhDs in there). So it is totally unsurprising to me that the APPEGA one is of similar quality.
Regarding that leveling of temperature from 1940 to 1970, might it be due, at least in part, to WWII?
to be mainly due to sulfate aerosol forcing from post-WWII rapid industrialization and a number of large volcanic eruptions. Sulfate aerosols increase the earth's albedo, thereby reflecting more sunlight back into space, but they are relatively short lived, so once measures were taken to reduce sulfate aerosols in the troposphere (to combat acid rain), the aerosols were reduced and CO2
took over as the dominant anthropogenic forcing. Here's what sulfate emissions looked like over time:
Keep in mind that CO2
concentration keeps increasing throughout this period.
Another reason why they suspect that aerosols are the main culprit is that, while daytime temperatures dropped, nighttime temperatures actually rose during this time (which is what you would expect, since there is no sunlight to reflect at night, but there is plenty of heat radiation that can be absorbed by CO2
Oh, and the article also mentions an issue with a change in the measurement of sea surface temperatures that may have lead to this hiatus being more pronounced, but I haven't really seen much about that since. But if this graph shows the correction they're referring to (which, in fairness, I'm not 100% sure of), it obviously didn't have a giant impact: