One of the ways I avoid the endless tone-debate is put numbers in context with other numbers. Here is a graph of a range of different models the IPCC used in t

One of the ways I avoid the endless tone-debate is put numbers in context with other numbers. Here is a graph of a range of different models the IPCC used in their Special Report on 1.5C in 2018: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3a.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3... So if you line up the graph in the OP on the left side of your screen/minds-eye and the graph from the IPCC on the right side, you get a feel for the dramatic swing in the second derivative that is necessary going forward. Note that these models assume we develop massive negative emissions technology in the mid and late century. That is to say, those are already assumed, so you cant use "we'll just develop negative emissions technology" as a counterpoint to the necessary amount of change in the immediate term. If you are at all skeptical of that technological development, then take a few hundred gigatons off the budget.