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.. 

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?

Here's some factual stuff on CO2

Facts Archive - CO2 Coalition

The oceans are Alkaline not Acidic. Anyway they're unlikely be acidic because most the ocean base is mostly Limestone.

Regarding Sea level rise

Please read this. (and comment)

Data Disproves BBC's Claim of ‘Sea Level Rise Speeding Up' - ClimateRealism

www.liverpool.ac.uk/.../

Nice straight line in the graph. Again no drama there.

I do wonder how they measured tide height in victorian times. But then the victorians new a thing or two about engineering, our Norfolk coast they installed groyne systems to prevent the promenades from falling into the sea. Nowadays due to the green madness the groynes are left to ruin. No maintenance. With the increase of 30cm in sea level since Victoria times  you would have thought that the Environment Agency would build then higher and repair the missing planks between the uprights,but no.

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's a fundamental problem with the EA - I think that's well known now considering the issues they're having with Walleys Quarry in Newcastle Under Lyme which continues to make national news. 

Climate realism? Not really the most reputable source. 

You can't argue that climate change doesn't exist considering the amount of nations and groups that have already declared such an emergency - if the collective consensus is that it's happening, how is Jon Steward suddenly seeing something that the whole of the scientific community has missed? 

Look at the summer we had this year. And the expectation is that's going to get worse year on year - that's not normal. 

Climate realism? Not really the most reputable source. 

You can't argue that climate change doesn't exist considering the amount of nations and groups that have already declared such an emergency - if the collective consensus is that it's happening, how is Jon Steward suddenly seeing something that the whole of the scientific community has missed? 

Look at the summer we had this year. And the expectation is that's going to get worse year on year - that's not normal. 

Lol.

You need a broader read Aaron. Don't believe the hype!

Of course, the climate is changing. So does the weather. There is a difference between the two.

The hot summer was lovely.. usually a colder winter follows.. so wrap up warm and don't use any energy..

There's no Hype Jon, just science here. 

academic.oup.com/.../5610806

With over 11000 scientists coming to the same conclusion I ask again Where's your empirical proof that all 11000 are wrong?

Have you got in touch and asked them to retract their works based on your findings? 

Were here to discuss the climate emergency and whether a declaration should be made by the iet.

If you want to contribute to solutions by all means let's create sub topics and begin deliberating, but I don't feel like that's why your here?