Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

23. Yes, that's how I see it too.

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:25 PM

Jun 2016

The scale is what makes me quite sure it's not going to happen.

In order to get from 410 back to 350 ppm we'd have to remove about 320 billion tonnes of CO2 from the air, in addition to removing whatever we put in, which right now is 35 billion tonnes/year.

If we just removed the 35 gigatonnes per year that we emit, the existing concentration would remain. As a result we'd probably see a +3C rise over time, since the full Earth System Sensitivity as reconstructed from the paleo record is higher than the Charney sensitivity that is typically used.

No, the scale is utterly unrealistic.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you REALLY want to help fight climate change? [View all] GliderGuider May 2016 OP

I highly, highly doubt those numbers. 20+ years in alternative and renewable fuel experience here. tonyt53 May 2016 #1

It obviously depends on the date the calculations are pinned to. GliderGuider May 2016 #2

This is nonsense OKIsItJustMe May 2016 #3

Why do we need a time machine? GliderGuider May 2016 #4

We need < 350 ppm CO₂. This will not get us there OKIsItJustMe May 2016 #12

Nothing is going to get us there. GliderGuider Jun 2016 #15

That�s a different concern� OKIsItJustMe Jun 2016 #17

What should we pretend will address climate change? GliderGuider Jun 2016 #19

�� a snowball's chance in Congress� OKIsItJustMe Jun 2016 #20

I don't actually think population control will do it. GliderGuider Jun 2016 #21

As I see it OKIsItJustMe Jun 2016 #22

Yes, that's how I see it too. GliderGuider Jun 2016 #23

Boy this would really piss off some one who wanted to be planet conscious and eat meat sue4e3 Jun 2016 #16

Yes, GliderGuider Jun 2016 #18

Logic. Use it. nt thereismore Jun 2016 #26

We're not quite the collective yet The2ndWheel May 2016 #5

This individualism is also reflected in the sovereign rights of nations GliderGuider May 2016 #6

"Why do people today have to pay for what other people previously did?" Boomer May 2016 #7

"Back hole"! Stanhope was cool until he said that. Duppers May 2016 #8

I don't think Stanhope really gives a fuck about offending people. GliderGuider May 2016 #9

Obviously. And i knew that. Duppers May 2016 #10

No worries. GliderGuider May 2016 #11

Exactly, leave the stupid, ignorant and uncaring to have the children Fumesucker Jun 2016 #13

It's not going to make any difference at this point who has the children. GliderGuider Jun 2016 #14

Kinda funny now! sylvanus Jun 2016 #24

There's a wise person behind that handle! GliderGuider Jun 2016 #25