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.
Roger Bryant:
If that is the case then trying to base AGW on a limited northern hemisphere weather pattern is similarly not valid. If you look at the Met office combined graph the rapid ~1°C temperature rise between 1970 and 2000 only appears in the northern hemisphere. It does not appear in the southern hemisphere.
I'm puzzled about what you think this means.
Ocean circulation as well as wind circulation is largely hemispherically contained (although for wind it makes more sense to divide into three: north, tropics and south).
Most of the anthropogenic contribution to climate (if you think there is some, which I do) will originate/have originated in the northern hemisphere, because that is where most of the sources are and have been. You'd expect northern-hemispheric causes to have northern-hemispheric effects, and you'd generally expect to see those effects manifest less in the southern hemisphere.
This gives two scenarios:
1) The MWP and LIA are valid climate effects and need to explained by the climate models especially the anthropogenic factors.
2) The CET rise from 1950 used by Stott is merely a northern hemisphere weather effect and can be ignored. Therefore it is not caused by anthropogenic factors.
You can’t have it both ways.
I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.
If the MWP and LIA are indeed climate phenomena then they had causes and presumably we can clarify these causes somewhat, subject to the limitation that they are historical effects. Suppose we accept Simon Barker's point that they were northern-hemispheric phenomena.
The Karoly-Stott phenomenon is also a northern-hemispheric phenomenon, obviously.
Why does a coherent explanation of MWP/LIA preclude the Karoly-Stott explanation of their phenomenon?
And how is an attribution with high confidence of a significant anthropogenic factor in the CET rise supposed to exclude an explanation of the MWP and LIA?
The third option:
The key difference between AR5 and AR6 is the measured temperature lines.
You are surely not seriously trying to suggest that a scale of a graph has been chosen in AR6 to mislead people? I would think most of the people bothering to try to read AR6 have known how to read 2D Cartesian graphs since their teens.
Roger Bryant:
If that is the case then trying to base AGW on a limited northern hemisphere weather pattern is similarly not valid. If you look at the Met office combined graph the rapid ~1°C temperature rise between 1970 and 2000 only appears in the northern hemisphere. It does not appear in the southern hemisphere.
I'm puzzled about what you think this means.
Ocean circulation as well as wind circulation is largely hemispherically contained (although for wind it makes more sense to divide into three: north, tropics and south).
Most of the anthropogenic contribution to climate (if you think there is some, which I do) will originate/have originated in the northern hemisphere, because that is where most of the sources are and have been. You'd expect northern-hemispheric causes to have northern-hemispheric effects, and you'd generally expect to see those effects manifest less in the southern hemisphere.
This gives two scenarios:
1) The MWP and LIA are valid climate effects and need to explained by the climate models especially the anthropogenic factors.
2) The CET rise from 1950 used by Stott is merely a northern hemisphere weather effect and can be ignored. Therefore it is not caused by anthropogenic factors.
You can’t have it both ways.
I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.
If the MWP and LIA are indeed climate phenomena then they had causes and presumably we can clarify these causes somewhat, subject to the limitation that they are historical effects. Suppose we accept Simon Barker's point that they were northern-hemispheric phenomena.
The Karoly-Stott phenomenon is also a northern-hemispheric phenomenon, obviously.
Why does a coherent explanation of MWP/LIA preclude the Karoly-Stott explanation of their phenomenon?
And how is an attribution with high confidence of a significant anthropogenic factor in the CET rise supposed to exclude an explanation of the MWP and LIA?
The third option:
The key difference between AR5 and AR6 is the measured temperature lines.
You are surely not seriously trying to suggest that a scale of a graph has been chosen in AR6 to mislead people? I would think most of the people bothering to try to read AR6 have known how to read 2D Cartesian graphs since their teens.
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
