3 ms·

Let's imagine we stopped all C02 production tomorrow. How long it will take for climate to start going back to "sane" measurements?

• davisr 3y ago
  It would take shorter than if we were to stop CO2 production at any later date. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is right now. Do what you can. Live sustainably. Vote righteously. Have consideration for the future.
  • nonameking2026 3y ago
    Probably best not starve the trees. Co2 is only 300-400ppm on the atmosphere
  • marapuru 3y ago
    Thanks for that first sentence. I'll share that with people around me that propose delaying.
• moffkalast 3y ago
  Well according to the c-roads simulator, if we reduce emmissions to zero this year, it still results in +1.5 C increase by the end of the century and stays there. I think that's roughly accurate if I recall the last IPCC report. At this point it's more a question of what we can do to prepare ourselves for the fallout, we've done our waving to the moments when we could do something as they passed by. The real question is what will destroy the ocean's food chain first, China's overfishing, the acidity and temperature increases, or the collapse of currents. Taking bets now.
  • algo_trader 3y ago
    > if we reduce emmissions to zero this year, it still results in +1.5 C increase by the end of the century this is non-sense according to the ipcc models for 1.5C, we still have a budget of 200BN tonCO2e for 2C, we have about 1TN tonCO2e for 2.5C, 2TN ton, is within current trajectory of progress we currently emmit about 50BN tons/annum All of the above are bad, but degrees (ha! pun!) matter > China's overfishing Bashing the developing world is not helpful. The US account for a massive chunk of historical emissions and excess consumption.
    • moffkalast 3y ago
      > or 1.5C, we still have a budget of 200BN tonCO2e > we currently emmit about 50BN tons/annum So, 4 years till we definitively get there? That honestly sounds worse because this was a hypothetical, we absolutely cannot stop our emissions to any meaningful degree if we want to continue living in a society. And even if we magically did stop all direct emissions, there are secondary warming processes that have started and cannot be stopped. The oceans absorb a quarter of all CO2 which they will start to outgass once the atmosphere concentration stops increasing. The melted glacial masses have reduced the planet's reflectivity, increasing the greenhouse effect. Permafrost thawing is causing methane releases, etc. > Bashing the developing world is not helpful. The US account for a massive chunk of historical emissions and excess consumption. Oh my bad, do keep doing it until all the fish are completely gone and we all starve to death because dumb people did things centuries ago. Yes the developed world has an obligation to assist in all ways possible to make sure progress and development can continue in a clean and sustainable way, but past crimes don't condone present ones. I mentioned China here specifically since they're an outlier in the topic, with vast ocean going fishing fleets emptying stock in even less developed countries that need it, i.e. Indonesia, Africa.
    • nonameking2026 3y ago
      US army is the largest non country entity