5 ms·
But don't we only need to "first" remove just enough of that 10 billion tons to maintain where we are now, so that we can then remove more to "go back to levels
by czbond 5y ago
But don't we only need to "first" remove just enough of that 10 billion tons to maintain where we are now, so that we can then remove more to "go back to levels earlier in modern time"?
- dataflow 5y agoYeah, we need to go extremely carbon-negative, not merely carbon-neutral. It's so easy to forget this.
- elzbardico 5y agoWhy?
- dataflow 5y agoWhy do we need to go carbon-negative? Because the atmosphere already has too much CO2, and reducing net emissions to 0 means that CO2 will stay there. We've emitted that CO2 in the course of (say) 300 years but need to pull it down in (say) < 50 years, hence we need to pull it down much faster than we emitted it. Not sure if that answered your question or if you meant something else.
- czbond 5y agoThanks - that did help me.
- elzbardico 5y agoYes, but what I wanted to know is if we kept the current concentrations would temeperature keep rising or would it stay basically the same as it is today.
- ummonk 5y agoIt would stay the same. And nature would reduce current concentrations back to normal over the next few centuries.