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:
[PBL]
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?
[End PBL quote]
As you are aware I agree with the first three and for 4. follow the other information that you have posted as well as AR6 WG1 which suggest an ECS of around 2°C.
That makes your position clearer.
You have said previously that the “problem” is not CO2. Since greenhouse gas emissions are given in CO2 equivalents, that suggests you were claiming that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not the problem. It would follow you were denying the conjuction of 1-3. Now that you have said that you are affirming 1-3, it follows that in fact you agree that greenhouse gases are “the problem”. But it seems rather that you think “the problem” (namely ECS) is not in the range that people are worrying about, but rather that it is much lower.
You seem to be wrong about what AR6 suggests. I quote directly from FAQ 7.3.
[AR6 WG1 FAQ] This Sixth Assessment Report concludes that there is a 90% or more chance (very likely) that the ECS is between 2°C and 5°C.
[RB]
In another reply you seem to take the typical ‘green’ endless resources viewpoint.
Straw man.
Costs are relative to, well, politics. Let me remind ourselves of the words of John Maynard Keynes in the midst of WWII: “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” (1942 BBC Address, Collected Works XXVII).
I think we can cover our rooves with PV plates, cover our walls with insulation, and exchange our windows. We can “actually do” it. Ergo, according to Keynes, we can afford it.
Indeed governments can print money but many of the resources required to carry out the ‘green’ movements demands are finite and highly polluting and energy intensive to produce/refine.
I don't know which “green movement” you might be talking about. Here in Germany we have a Green party, which is about to reenter government. They have concrete proposals for transitioning towards carbon neutral, and it is probably the main reason why they did so well in the recent elections.
What are your solutions to AGW and what are their resource requirements?
That is a general question which has a general answer, namely the same as anyone else's. Reduce my carbon footprint, which at the moment is primarily building heating, which I have been discussing on other threads. And join in on work aiming to get society's footprint well down.
Roger Bryant:
[PBL]
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?
[End PBL quote]
As you are aware I agree with the first three and for 4. follow the other information that you have posted as well as AR6 WG1 which suggest an ECS of around 2°C.
That makes your position clearer.
You have said previously that the “problem” is not CO2. Since greenhouse gas emissions are given in CO2 equivalents, that suggests you were claiming that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not the problem. It would follow you were denying the conjuction of 1-3. Now that you have said that you are affirming 1-3, it follows that in fact you agree that greenhouse gases are “the problem”. But it seems rather that you think “the problem” (namely ECS) is not in the range that people are worrying about, but rather that it is much lower.
You seem to be wrong about what AR6 suggests. I quote directly from FAQ 7.3.
[AR6 WG1 FAQ] This Sixth Assessment Report concludes that there is a 90% or more chance (very likely) that the ECS is between 2°C and 5°C.
[RB]
In another reply you seem to take the typical ‘green’ endless resources viewpoint.
Straw man.
Costs are relative to, well, politics. Let me remind ourselves of the words of John Maynard Keynes in the midst of WWII: “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” (1942 BBC Address, Collected Works XXVII).
I think we can cover our rooves with PV plates, cover our walls with insulation, and exchange our windows. We can “actually do” it. Ergo, according to Keynes, we can afford it.
Indeed governments can print money but many of the resources required to carry out the ‘green’ movements demands are finite and highly polluting and energy intensive to produce/refine.
I don't know which “green movement” you might be talking about. Here in Germany we have a Green party, which is about to reenter government. They have concrete proposals for transitioning towards carbon neutral, and it is probably the main reason why they did so well in the recent elections.
What are your solutions to AGW and what are their resource requirements?
That is a general question which has a general answer, namely the same as anyone else's. Reduce my carbon footprint, which at the moment is primarily building heating, which I have been discussing on other threads. And join in on work aiming to get society's footprint well down.
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
