> consider the alternative, not doing it....Let the temperature rise so fast... Sounds like the obvious choice...but can you put some numbers to it? 1. How m

> consider the alternative, not doing it....Let the temperature rise so fast... Sounds like the obvious choice...but can you put some numbers to it? 1. How much C02 do we need to take out of the air to prevent your doomsday scenario, 2. How fast do we need to take it out of the air? 3. How much energy would it take to do that? 4. What are the side effects of generating that much energy, and expending it according to the timeframe of #2? HellifIknow the answers, but I can do a bit of Fermi-style estimation, and no matter what numbers I plug in, it just doesn't make any sense. Depending upon the answer to #2, we might not even be able to: 1. convert 100% of our energy generation to carbon-neutral sources, 2. Install 2.5-3x (depending upon how efficient carbon capture can become) the amount of power generating capacity we already have--again, all from carbon neutral sites 3. And then start extracting C02 out of the atmosphere at the same rate we put it in. #1 alone seems like it will take decades, to say the least. #2 says that doing #1 is going to be 2.5-3x harder. We will have to not only supply our current power budget, but also the energy needed to power these global scrubbers. And is the rate in #3 even enough? > Animals and plants have fairly narrow bands of acceptable temperature and don’t have air conditioning. Yeah, unless I'm very mistaken, they are screwed. It might not even be physically possible to do steps #1 through #3 in time to save them.