Originally posted by danwell.finnoI will assume your questions...

Originally posted by danwell.finno

I will assume your questions are not rhetorical. I am not sure about the temperature change after net zero, but I think it will not fall much because it takes 200 years for the CO2 emissions of the previous eras to dissipate even if we don't add to them. The increase or rate of increase would slow down, which would be, ummm, good. But I am highly skeptical about the concept of "net" zero, because the governments and other bodies pursuing it have as their first priority the preservation of economic growth and strategic competitive advantage. Emissions reduction measures are approved only if they are compatible with those goals. They include wishful thinking, e.g. methods not invented yet, like large scale CCS or direct capture. Typically, emissions reduction plans have resulted in emissions increases so far, e.g. the rush for China to build more coal fired power stations before its deadlines kick in, or both Labor and Liberal insisting the gas must keep on burning. There are lots of other examples, including the US oil one I mentioned in the previous post. So I can't see "net zero" even happening the way things are going right now. Other studies have called for a thing called "absolute zero", but they are incompatible with the priorities of growth and strategic supremacy and thus governments do not act on them.

As for measurement, I have not encountered any serious objection to things like the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service, or the US NOAA, so presumably, those and others will continue to provide measurements, and probably be refined and improved if any credible faults are found in their methodology. So I'd say the answer is yes, it could be measured.

I'm not the kind of climate doomist that thinks it's game over, might as well give up now. I just think it's too late to stop it from being a massive disaster. That gun has been fired and we won't catch the bullet, but we can maybe stop firing bigger and bigger guns at ourselves so we will recover from the injuries.

Referring to your other post, ("Chinese POS") EVs are better for emissions than ICE cars when they have been driven four 2-4 years. It's my understanding that the cars the Chinese are making are of good quality and should last as long as those made in Japan or the US, easily more than 4 years on average. The longevity of EV motors and the improvements in battery technology means EVs have the potential to stay on the road much longer than ICE cars. Batteries can be replaced, effectively upgrading the car, like a RAM upgrade in an old PC. For this potential to be realised, EV makers would have to promote longevity as a competitive advantage, or be forced to do it by "right to repair" type regulation. We need that!

If you are an irrational climate denier, I am wasting my time, but even so I enjoy laying out my thoughts and attempting to be as evidence-based as my lay-person's knowledge will allow.