4 ms·
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you've been misunderstood. Are you saying: 1. Most CO2 release is natural 2. We increased CO2 through our own efforts
by graeme 9y ago
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you've been misunderstood. Are you saying:
1. Most CO2 release is natural
2. We increased CO2 through our own efforts as well
3. [implied statement you may agree with: this led to a feedback loop]
4. We now may be too late to stop it merely by reducing emissions, if planetary emissions of stored carbon take over and become the main source of CO2 emissions
I think's actually fairly profound. We may have pushed the system towards a new equilibrium, and it's now moving itself faster than we are pushing it. The only way to stop it would be to invent something to suck carbon from the atmosphere on a massive scale.
Is that what you were saying? You're getting downvotes because your first statement, while technically true, isn't very profound. Natural carbon emissions were counterbalanced by natural carbon storage.
But that might not be true if our additional emissions have triggered enough feedback loops.
- cropsieboss 9y agoMost CO2 is indeed natural. We did increase the circulating amount by a very small margin. Large enough so that it accumulated over the years. This of course led to a feedback loop. Arctic ice has 1400Gt of carbon locked up as methane. [1] This is equivalent to 1400/10 = 140 years of human 2016 activity. [2] If ice starts to melt, we are doomed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions [2]: https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
- specialist 9y agoI believe (but cannot prove, obviously) that we're way past the tipping point. Meaning simply reducing anthropocentric emissions, even down to zero, will not meaningfully impact atomspheric CO2, methane. For civilization to survive, we must adapt, mitigate, or both.
- stale2002 9y agoThe scientific consensus is that sea levels will rise by 1-2 meters over the course of 200 years. Thats the science. And it doesn't sound like extinction to me.
- mark-r 9y agoSea levels aren't the only source of trouble. Changing rainfall amounts for example would impact our ability to grow crops. Yes, extinction seems unlikely. But the planet's ability to support the current population could easily be a casualty.
- brazzledazzle 9y agoI think the concern is that the models in use don't take these additional feedback loops into consideration because they're difficult to predict.
- graeme 9y agoYup. That's what's terrifying. Most current talk about CO2 assumes that humans will have control over how much is released. But since we pushed the system to a new state, its net emissions may dwarf our own emissions. Then things get even harder.
- pier25 9y ago> If ice starts to melt, we are doomed. It's already happening. Natalia Shakhova has been studying this for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM