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.
In the 60 years of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen by around 100ppm from just over 300ppm to just over 400ppm. If this rate is constant, which it probably isn’t, a doubling of CO2 from the 1960 level will take 180 years from 1960 or 120 years from now. That takes us to 2140. Assuming an increasing rate of emissions maybe we will have a doubling of CO2 levels by 2100. If we can reduce a bit the doubling may be by 2150 or beyond.
What is the effect of this doubling? The E&T piece on the Nobel Prize suggests that the ECS is over 2°C.
The IPCC AR6 WG1 has a number of figures:
A.4.4 The equilibrium climate sensitivity is an important quantity used to estimate how the climate responds to radiative forcing. Based on multiple lines of evidence,21 the very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence), compared to 1.5°C to 4.5°C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf
I will take their best estimate of 3°C for the ECS. This suggests the with rising emissions we may get a 3°C Global increase by 2100. With steady or falling emissions 3°C may be reached by the middle of the next century or beyond. As I have stated many times before we have a climate problem, not a climate emergency.
I don’t see any realistic proposals from the Green Parties. They have lots of demands but very little facts on timescales and resource requirements. The German Greens have done well so far, forcing the closure of viable nuclear plants so the electricity shortfall is produced by burning lignite or importing fossil fuel electricity from Poland.
We live in a circa 20 year old two bedroom apartment with only two outside walls. What heat we do need comes from the district heating which burns actual waste wood from the local timber industry. I walk to work. We do own a diesel car but I don’t see it is energetically sensible to replace it with an EV in view of the limited mileage (kilometerage) that it does. A major part of my employers business is the manufacture of wire and cable systems for electric railways and EVs.
In the 60 years of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen by around 100ppm from just over 300ppm to just over 400ppm. If this rate is constant, which it probably isn’t, a doubling of CO2 from the 1960 level will take 180 years from 1960 or 120 years from now. That takes us to 2140. Assuming an increasing rate of emissions maybe we will have a doubling of CO2 levels by 2100. If we can reduce a bit the doubling may be by 2150 or beyond.
What is the effect of this doubling? The E&T piece on the Nobel Prize suggests that the ECS is over 2°C.
The IPCC AR6 WG1 has a number of figures:
A.4.4 The equilibrium climate sensitivity is an important quantity used to estimate how the climate responds to radiative forcing. Based on multiple lines of evidence,21 the very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence), compared to 1.5°C to 4.5°C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf
I will take their best estimate of 3°C for the ECS. This suggests the with rising emissions we may get a 3°C Global increase by 2100. With steady or falling emissions 3°C may be reached by the middle of the next century or beyond. As I have stated many times before we have a climate problem, not a climate emergency.
I don’t see any realistic proposals from the Green Parties. They have lots of demands but very little facts on timescales and resource requirements. The German Greens have done well so far, forcing the closure of viable nuclear plants so the electricity shortfall is produced by burning lignite or importing fossil fuel electricity from Poland.
We live in a circa 20 year old two bedroom apartment with only two outside walls. What heat we do need comes from the district heating which burns actual waste wood from the local timber industry. I walk to work. We do own a diesel car but I don’t see it is energetically sensible to replace it with an EV in view of the limited mileage (kilometerage) that it does. A major part of my employers business is the manufacture of wire and cable systems for electric railways and EVs.
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
