More people need more food, meat, houses, hot water, cars all of which need fuel. 

The planet has many different types of fuels but nearly all concentrated fuels are hydrocarbons and emit CO2.

The planets answer is to defrost the tundra and icecaps so more vegetation can absorb the CO2

Gods very sensible solution and one we must live with.. 

Did you read the actual 2016 study and see how limited it was?

Meanwhile in the real world cereal production is increasing steadily in spite of increasing temperatures and CO2 levels:

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

Here's straight from nasa.

" the warming properties of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are well-established and scientifically uncontroversial.

Available CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth outside of a greenhouse.

Proper moisture, nutrients, temperature, sunlight and controlling pests are.

How Rising CO2 Affects Nutrition:

Though rising CO2 stimulates plant growth and carbohydrate production, it reduces the nutritional value (protein and minerals) of most food crops. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health.

health2016.globalchange.gov/executive-summary

Protein: 

As CO2 increases, plants need less protein for photosynthesis, resulting in an overall decline in protein concentration in plant tissues. This trend for declining protein levels is evident for wheat flour derived from multiple wheat varieties when grown under laboratory conditions simulating the observed increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900. When grown at the CO2 levels projected for 2100 (540–958 ppm), major food crops, such as barley, wheat, rice, and potato, exhibit 6% to 15% lower protein concentrations relative to ambient levels (315–400 ppm). In contrast, protein content is not anticipated to decline significantly for corn or sorghum.

While protein is an essential aspect of human dietary needs, the projected human health impacts of a diet including plants with reduced protein concentration from increasing CO2 are not well understood and may not be of considerable threat in the United States, where dietary protein deficiencies are uncommon.

Micronutrients:

The ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 is also very likely to deplete other elements essential to human health (such as calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, and zinc) by 5% to 10% in most plants. The projected decline in mineral concentrations in crops has been attributed to at least two distinct effects of elevated CO2 on plant biology. First, rising CO2 increases carbohydrate accumulation in plant tissues, which can, in turn, dilute the content of other nutrients, including minerals. Second, high CO2 concentrations reduce plant demands for water, resulting in fewer nutrients being drawn into plant roots.

The ongoing increase in CO2 concentrations reduces the amount of essential minerals per calorie in most crops, thus reducing nutrient density. Such a reduction in crop quality may aggravate existing nutritional deficiencies, particularly for populations with pre-existing health conditions.

Carbohydrate-to-Protein Ratio:

Elevated CO2 tends to increase the concentrations of carbohydrates (starch and sugars) and reduce the concentrations of protein. The overall effect is a significant increase in the ratio of carbohydrates to protein in plants exposed to increasing CO2. There is growing evidence that a dietary increase in this ratio can adversely affect human metabolism and body composition.

health2016.globalchange.gov/food-safety-nutrition-and-distribution

health2016.globalchange.gov/food-safety-nutrition-and-distribution

Carbon speeds crop growth but often for little gain:

"In “real world” conditions, any gains from carbon fertilisation are lost − because of the stress caused to crops by the 2°C temperature rise that the gas causes in the atmosphere. Even worse, the fact that crops grow faster does not mean that their nutritional value is greater – many showed lower mineral nutrients and protein content.

Some crops do get a boost from more carbon in the atmosphere because it makes photosynthesis more efficient, but this is only if nutrients and water are available at optimum levels. This group includes soybean, cassava and rice, all vital in feeding some of the hungriest people in the world.

The anticipated 2°C rise in temperature, caused primarily by this increase in CO2, could halve yields of some of our major crops, wiping out any gain from CO2.

“Lots of people have presumed that rising CO2 is largely a good thing for crops, assuming more CO2 will make the world’s forests greener and increase crop yields,” Ainsworth said.

“The more recent studies challenge that assumption a bit. We’re finding that when you have other stresses, you don’t always get a benefit of elevated CO2. The last 15 years have taught us to account more for the complex interactions from other factors like drought, temperature, nutrients and pests.”

The poor quality of some of the grain, with less mineral and protein content, is also a blow to add to the crop growth doubts. The potential increased yield is also much smaller under conditions where there is low nitrogen fertiliser, typical of the world’s poorest countries."

climatenewsnetwork.net/.../

Ainsworth and Long 2020 - 30 years of free‐air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE): What have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation?

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../gcb.15375

86% of land ecosystems globally are becoming progressively less efficient at absorbing the increasing levels of CO2 from the atmosphere.

climate.nasa.gov/.../

Wang et al 2020 - Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis

science.sciencemag.org/.../1295.full

Soils or plants will absorb more CO2 as carbon levels rise—but not both

"When elevated carbon dioxide levels drive increased plant growth, it takes a surprisingly steep toll on another big carbon sink: the soil.

Plants effectively mine the soil for nutrients they need to keep up with carbon-fueled growth. Extracting the extra nutrients requires revving up microbial activity, which then releases CO2 into the atmosphere that might otherwise remain locked in soil.

The research suggests grasslands may absorb unexpectedly large amounts of carbon in the coming decades. Under a scenario where atmospheric CO2 doubles pre-industrial levels the researchers estimate carbon uptake in grassland soils will increase 8 percent, while carbon uptake by forest soils will remain roughly flat. That's in spite of CO2 enrichment giving a greater boost to biomass in forests (23 percent) than in grasslands (9 percent), partly because trees allocate belowground a relatively small portion of the carbon they absorb."

phys.org/.../2021-03-soils-absorb-co2-carbon-risebut.html

Terrer et al 2021 - A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03306-8

"

It's not about the guardian. It literally references a scientific study. That's your source. 

Not alot of talk about the oceans which far outweighs the land when it comes to co2 absorption and immision.

We do know the planet is greening.

Aaron ,

Do you actually read the documents you link? Some appear to contradict what you are saying.

You start with some NASA quotes without references:

“Available CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth outside of a greenhouse”

Why does CO2 work inside a greenhouse but not outside? A level of 1000 ppm is suggested as an optimum:

http://omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

" the warming properties of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are well-established and scientifically uncontroversial.” The actual effect may be non-controversial but the magnitude certainly is not settled.

From NASA Earth Observatory:

“As Arrhenius predicted, both carbon dioxide levels and temperatures increased from 1900–1999. However, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased much more quickly than he expected, but the Earth hasn't warmed as much as he thought it would. (Graphs by Robert Simmon, based on data from NOAA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies)”

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_2.php

Looking at the Ainsworth and Long 2020 abstract (the full article is paywalled):

“Here, we summarize the results of now almost 250 observations, spanning 14 sites and five continents. Across 186 independent studies of 18 C3 crops, elevation of [CO2] by ca. 200 ppm caused a ca. 18% increase in yield under non-stress conditions. Legumes and root crops showed a greater increase and cereals less.”

This rather contradicts your previous debunking of CO2 enhancing plant growth.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15375

Roger B said:

Why does CO2 work inside a greenhouse but not outside?

Plants inside greenhouses are normally pampered.  It's warm.  They get regularly fed and watered.  So the limiting factor (for some typed os plant) may be the CO2.

Outside, they live in dirt, get whatever rain falls on them, and whatever fertiliser the farmer could afford.  CO2 may well not be the limiting factor there.

And if the plant is being hit by drought, heatwave, storms or floods, then a bit of extra CO2 certainly isn't going to do a lot of good.

Hey, 

the original NASA post speaks for itself, the sources are in the link shared.

For the other bits, it sounds like you're still promoting the CO2 is good for plant growth angle (correct me if I'm wrong). 

So let's break this down again using the post I previously shared (I've streamlined it a bit).

Here's the negative aspects to what's currently happening. 

Nutritional Value Changes

"Though rising CO2 stimulates plant growth and carbohydrate production, it reduces the nutritional value (protein and minerals) of most food crops. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health."

health2016.globalchange.gov/executive-summary

Protein: 

As CO2 increases, plants need less protein for photosynthesis, resulting in an overall decline in protein concentration in plant tissues. This trend for declining protein levels is evident for wheat flour derived from multiple wheat varieties when grown under laboratory conditions simulating the observed increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900. When grown at the CO2 levels projected for 2100 (540–958 ppm), major food crops, such as barley, wheat, rice, and potato, exhibit 6% to 15% lower protein concentrations relative to ambient levels (315–400 ppm). In contrast, protein content is not anticipated to decline significantly for corn or sorghum.

While protein is an essential aspect of human dietary needs, the projected human health impacts of a diet including plants with reduced protein concentration from increasing CO2 are not well understood and may not be of considerable threat in the United States, where dietary protein deficiencies are uncommon.

Micronutrients:

First, rising CO2 increases carbohydrate accumulation in plant tissues, which can, in turn, dilute the content of other nutrients, including minerals. Second, high CO2 concentrations reduce plant demands for water, resulting in fewer nutrients being drawn into plant roots.

The ongoing increase in CO2 concentrations reduces the amount of essential minerals per calorie in most crops, thus reducing nutrient density. Such a reduction in crop quality may aggravate existing nutritional deficiencies, particularly for populations with pre-existing health conditions.

Carbohydrate-to-Protein Ratio:

Elevated CO2 tends to increase the concentrations of carbohydrates (starch and sugars) and reduce the concentrations of protein. There is growing evidence that a dietary increase in this ratio can adversely affect human metabolism and body composition.

health2016.globalchange.gov/food-safety-nutrition-and-distribution

health2016.globalchange.gov/food-safety-nutrition-and-distribution

Carbon speeds crop growth but often for little gain:

"In “real world” conditions, any gains from carbon fertilisation are lost − because of the stress caused to crops by the 2°C temperature rise that the gas causes in the atmosphere.

Even worse, the fact that crops grow faster does not mean that their nutritional value is greater – many showed lower mineral nutrients and protein content.

“Lots of people have presumed that rising CO2 is largely a good thing for crops, assuming more CO2 will make the world’s forests greener and increase crop yields,” Ainsworth said.

“The more recent studies challenge that assumption a bit. We’re finding that when you have other stresses, you don’t always get a benefit of elevated CO2. The last 15 years have taught us to account more for the complex interactions from other factors like drought, temperature, nutrients and pests.”

climatenewsnetwork.net/.../

Land becomes less efficient at absorbing CO2

86% of land ecosystems globally are becoming progressively less efficient at absorbing the increasing levels of CO2 from the atmosphere.

climate.nasa.gov/.../

Wang et al 2020 - Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis

science.sciencemag.org/.../1295.full

Soil Vs Plants

Soils or plants will absorb more CO2 as carbon levels rise—but not both

"When elevated carbon dioxide levels drive increased plant growth, it takes a surprisingly steep toll on another big carbon sink: the soil.

The research suggests grasslands may absorb unexpectedly large amounts of carbon in the coming decades. Under a scenario where atmospheric CO2 doubles pre-industrial levels the researchers estimate carbon uptake in grassland soils will increase 8 percent, while carbon uptake by forest soils will remain roughly flat. That's in spite of CO2 enrichment giving a greater boost to biomass in forests (23 percent) than in grasslands (9 percent), partly because trees allocate belowground a relatively small portion of the carbon they absorb."

phys.org/.../2021-03-soils-absorb-co2-carbon-risebut.html

Terrer et al 2021 - A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03306-8

"

The realisation is climate change is occurring, and it can't be ignored. 

More over the longer we discuss this and don't move towards acting together as a collective body, the more the scales tip ever further from our favour. 

We should be coming together to discuss this and push forward with solutions.

Look at the news, ordinary people are rising up and taking direct action to raise awareness, but there are also more and more professional groups joining the mix. 

I'm not saying we need to engage in activism, but as some of the brightest and innovative minds this country has, everyone will look to us to define the path forward and solutioneer a way out of this. 

Indeed, the CO2 isn't the be all and end all factor, it's a combination of factors, some of which are triggered BY the increase in CO2 and other particulates as we can see in this thread. 

Ok let's talk ocean. 

"Coastal flooding will increase significantly over the next 30 years because of sea level rise, according to a new report by an interagency sea level rise task force that includes NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies. Titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States, the Feb. 15 report concludes that sea level along U.S. coastlines will rise between 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 centimeters) on average above today’s levels by 2050.

The report – an update to a 2017 report – forecasts sea level to the year 2150 and, for the first time, offers near-term projections for the next 30 years. Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels use these reports to inform their plans on anticipating and coping with the effects of sea level rise.

“This report supports previous studies and confirms what we have long known: Sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world. Science is indisputable and urgent action is required to mitigate a climate crisis that is well underway,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “NASA is steadfast in our commitment to protecting our home planet by expanding our monitoring capabilities and continuing to ensure our climate data is not only accessible but understandable.”

Sea Level to Rise up to a Foot by 2050, Interagency Report Finds – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

The rise in sea level is currently 101.2mm since 1993

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

"The ocean absorbs around 30% of carbon dioxide (CO₂) released to the atmosphere as a result of human activities. As CO₂ dissolves in seawater, it forms carbonic acid, decreasing the ocean’s pH. This is called ocean acidification. The acidity of the ocean has increased by 26% since the beginning of the industrial era.

Ocean acidification is also changing other aspects of seawater carbonate chemistry. The saturation of calcium carbonate minerals, such as calcite and aragonite, is lowered, reducing the availability of these minerals. Organisms using calcium carbonates as the main building blocks of their shells and skeletal structures, such as mussels, crustaceans and corals, are struggling or unable to form and maintain the shells and carapaces they need.

Ocean acidification has been shown to affect organisms and ecosystems, impacting ecosystem services such as food security, by endangering fisheries and aquaculture. It also impacts coastal protection (for example by weakening coral reefs shielding the coastline), transportation and tourism. The ocean’s capacity to store carbon dioxide and help regulate the climate will be affected, as the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO₂ decreases as ocean acidification increases. Regular observations and measurements of ocean acidification in open oceans and coastal areas are necessary to improve our understanding of the effects, enable modelling and predictions and help inform mitigation and adaptation strategies."

Ocean acidification (unesco.org)

 I am amused to see that you are no longer quoting Ainsworth and Long 2020.

As stated therein from 250 observations around the world under non stress conditions 200ppm increase in CO2 caused an average 18% increase in yield.

If there are other limits on growth, temperature, water, nutrients etc then higher CO2 levels may not make an improvement and may result in other problems.

If you look at the trajectory the world is supposed to be on, higher temperatures, higher rainfall and more CO2 will all be beneficial to crop growth.

Sea level is another interesting series of data sets. Here is one from NOAA:

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/global-mean-sea-level-graph

This shows very little acceleration in the rate of rise and has a rise of a little over 80mm since 1993. The NASA source you quote has a rise of 101mm since 1993.

If we look at the longer term view from the NASA source the rate of rise varies considerably and the current rate is similar to the rate between 1935 and 1950. Is the quote “Sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world” really valid.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

All in all a problem not an emergency.

So what do we do? The IET declaring a ‘Climate Emergency’ is pointless. The problem needs well thought out technical solutions.

Where will we get the most benefits? What are the resources required?

Should we focus on transport electrification? Is electric public transport, trams, trains and trolley buses better than personal EVs (for a given value of better)? How do you deal with agricultural and construction transport where there is no infrastructure?

Is replacing the inefficient housing stock more sensible than retrofitting insulation and heat pump systems? There is an interesting selection of very energy efficient ‘flat pack’ houses available.  

Is it better to invest in wind and PV together with large storage systems or in new nuclear generation with load following capabilities?

What do you propose should be done?

 I am amused to see that you are no longer quoting Ainsworth and Long 2020.

As stated therein from 250 observations around the world under non stress conditions 200ppm increase in CO2 caused an average 18% increase in yield.

If there are other limits on growth, temperature, water, nutrients etc then higher CO2 levels may not make an improvement and may result in other problems.

If you look at the trajectory the world is supposed to be on, higher temperatures, higher rainfall and more CO2 will all be beneficial to crop growth.

Sea level is another interesting series of data sets. Here is one from NOAA:

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/global-mean-sea-level-graph

This shows very little acceleration in the rate of rise and has a rise of a little over 80mm since 1993. The NASA source you quote has a rise of 101mm since 1993.

If we look at the longer term view from the NASA source the rate of rise varies considerably and the current rate is similar to the rate between 1935 and 1950. Is the quote “Sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world” really valid.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

All in all a problem not an emergency.

So what do we do? The IET declaring a ‘Climate Emergency’ is pointless. The problem needs well thought out technical solutions.

Where will we get the most benefits? What are the resources required?

Should we focus on transport electrification? Is electric public transport, trams, trains and trolley buses better than personal EVs (for a given value of better)? How do you deal with agricultural and construction transport where there is no infrastructure?

Is replacing the inefficient housing stock more sensible than retrofitting insulation and heat pump systems? There is an interesting selection of very energy efficient ‘flat pack’ houses available.  

Is it better to invest in wind and PV together with large storage systems or in new nuclear generation with load following capabilities?

What do you propose should be done?

Here's some factual stuff on CO2

Facts Archive - CO2 Coalition

Hey Roger sorry for the delay. 

In terms of the latter section of your previous post: 

Roger B said:

So what do we do? The IET declaring a ‘Climate Emergency’ is pointless. The problem needs well thought out technical solutions.

The point here is to add a big name to the ever growing list of places announcing it. 

I don't disagree it needs thought out technical solutions. 

Roger B said:

Where will we get the most benefits? What are the resources required?

That's exactly why we're here at the IET isn't it. Are we not the ones working in those industries able to answer the technical challenges behind this?

Roger B said:

Should we focus on transport electrification? Is electric public transport, trams, trains and trolley buses better than personal EVs (for a given value of better)? How do you deal with agricultural and construction transport where there is no infrastructure

Personally speaking, I'm a big supporter of transport electrification, that's why I began posting on EVii on social media.

One of the biggest reasons I'm seeing for the lack of take up in this area from personal experience looking into the advertising side of this is the massive amount of disinformation surrounding the tech. 

You have so many people posting memes about the cars being charged from coal so it's not green - you point out that despite it being charged from coal (in some cases) the overall emissions are still less than a comparable ICE vehicle (see the EVii posts for details on the specifics why), they'll just respond with a laughing face and move onto the next myth, like the grid will fall over, they'll explode on your driveway etc. etc. 

People are actually under the assumption that these myths are real, and it only takes a short conversation or a link to better materials to show them they're being led by myth, not science. 

We are the people who should be correcting this. What's the point of learning everything we do just to allow everyone else to continue to believe propaganda posts about EV being the root of all evil etc. 

In terms of public transport, that's a difficult one because of the current ownership structure, take my local area as an example. 

The council is part funding upgrades to OLD buses (like 2003 ish) to retrofit them with EURO6 compliant diesel engines, there's zero hybridisation going on and zero roadmap to upgrade the fleet to hybrid/ hydrogen or fully electric, this is despite those vehicles already existing with the likes of volvo producing them. 

We're actually paying private companies to upgrade their own fleets - which is ludicrous. 

Will someone pay me to upgrade my vehicle? No! 

Fundamentally there's lots we can look at, it's a case of splitting it down into individual topics and working on them from there I'd suggest. As this thread can't capture everything (though it could signpost).

There are many structural problems that the UK and other countries need to deal with that are probably more complex than the technical ones.

Energy Market: What is a sensible price for energy? How can it be related to the actual cost of production? What is the value of dispatchable energy over intermittent energy?

Housing: Are the current building regulations fit for purpose? Can people be persuaded or encouraged to live in more efficient apartment blocks rather than individual dwellings?

Public Transport: How can the public transport system be integrated with connecting timetables and consistently priced through ticketing?

The World Scientists document is another piece of fairly worthless virtue signalling. Surely 11 000 scientists can come up with some solutions not just demands?

In Cosmos (~1980) Carl Sagan gives a good description of science:

Science has two rules.

First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless.

Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised.

Unfortunately current climate science breaks both of these rules.

Global temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. Before that during the Middle Ages Warm Period temperatures may well have been warmer than today. There is much documentary evidence to support this which suggests that the temperature changes must have been at least 1°C. from the average. This is ignored/deleted from current climate science as it is not supported by the current models. Is this a reversed use of rule 2? Surely the models should be revised to match reality?

Are the assumptions of climate science critically examined? Why have none of the past predictions happened? There is still snowfall and skiing. There is still Arctic ice in the summer. Why is the current global temperature always at the bottom end of the predictions?

Why does climate science keep needing to use arguments from authority? 97% of scientists said.. 11 000 scientists (out of how many?) signed this ..

Just to repeat my position: I accept that the climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. Mankind needs to reduce it’s impact on the planet, minimise the use of finite resources and reduce pollution.

This will be my last post on this thread as the tree structure has now become too obscure for me.