5 ms·

> We have about 10 years of emissions left if we want to stay below 2°. First off, if that is the case you can be sure we'll end "above 2°" (by which I'm sure

> We have about 10 years of emissions left if we want to stay below 2°. First off, if that is the case you can be sure we'll end "above 2°" (by which I'm sure you mean 2° above some earlier average). China and India alone have massive projected tails for their CO2 output. Second, "10 years of emissions left"? You're suggesting that somehow C02 emissions could be curtailed completely within 10 years? Absurd... Neither transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity are known well enough to make such pronouncements - but the global warming alarmists feel it necessary to periodically throw a deadline out there. They think it's good psychology, and will lead to more panic...whether or not such panic is actually justified.

adrianN 7y ago
No, I'm suggesting that we start a linear reduction right now and be done in 20 years. Perhaps overshoot the target by a few years and pay for it with carbon sequestration.
- Recurecur 7y ago
  Your "we" includes every nation on Earth? Including China and India who have built many coal fired electricity plants lately, and have plans to build many more? Plants that have design lifetimes of ~40 years? You expect to have all fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide phased out within 20 years? Including aircraft? What about cargo ships? There is no practical chance of even hitting the lowest trajectory IPCC target, much less something considerably below that.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Well then we probably shouldn't even try right? Just keep on accelerating towards that cliff.
    - Recurecur 7y ago
      Did I say that? What does make sense is to do cost effective, beneficial, and non-sacrificial things. One of the best things overall is to promote next generation nuclear power as a major alternative to coal. If coal could be phased out entirely within 20-30 years that would be a huge win. Perhaps grid storage could largely replace gas generation. That would leave fossil fuels mainly in transportation, which would be a giant improvement over today. Lower CO2 trajectories give more time to rigorously evaluate the science, get more data, and develop revolutionary technology.

adrianN 7y ago

No, I'm suggesting that we start a linear reduction right now and be done in 20 years. Perhaps overshoot the target by a few years and pay for it with carbon sequestration.

Recurecur 7y ago
Your "we" includes every nation on Earth? Including China and India who have built many coal fired electricity plants lately, and have plans to build many more? Plants that have design lifetimes of ~40 years? You expect to have all fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide phased out within 20 years? Including aircraft? What about cargo ships? There is no practical chance of even hitting the lowest trajectory IPCC target, much less something considerably below that.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Well then we probably shouldn't even try right? Just keep on accelerating towards that cliff.
  - Recurecur 7y ago
    Did I say that? What does make sense is to do cost effective, beneficial, and non-sacrificial things. One of the best things overall is to promote next generation nuclear power as a major alternative to coal. If coal could be phased out entirely within 20-30 years that would be a huge win. Perhaps grid storage could largely replace gas generation. That would leave fossil fuels mainly in transportation, which would be a giant improvement over today. Lower CO2 trajectories give more time to rigorously evaluate the science, get more data, and develop revolutionary technology.