7 ms·
Totally! But look at the 1800-1900 mark, what were the emissions then? It's crazy just how little CO2 was released that made that sharp flow immediately start,
by SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Totally! But look at the 1800-1900 mark, what were the emissions then? It's crazy just how little CO2 was released that made that sharp flow immediately start, I would have thought the would be some ramp up phase, but I guess not!
Isn't it amazing how little CO2 from 1800-1900 was released compared to today? But it still kicked off this drastic change in slope?
I'm very skeptical would could in our best efforts globally get down to 1900 levels just given how many more people there are, and they need to eat.
- WorldMaker 7y agoI don't think it was that "little"; 1800-1900 encompassed a lot of early fossil fuel usage, including a lot of coal and nearly extinguishing whales for burnable oils. There was also a great deal of deforestation. Don't forget to take into account efficiency improvements in your mental estimates of how much CO2 was released, we don't produce that much more CO2 than the 1800s because we do a lot more with less. (An LED lamp compared to a whale oil lamp is an amazing difference in carbon output thanks to all sorts of efficiency gains.) Certainly, we are in trouble if our goal is to somehow get back to pre-1800 temperature levels. Which is why the goal setting has always "merely" been to try stop the current slope from so dangerously remaining exponential, and has never been about entirely undoing the effects of man-made climate change. As a species, we can try solve that after we've done what we can about the present problems of that sharp forecasted curve.