You often hear that so-and-so much #GlobalWarming is "baked in", that is, the world keeps on warming on the #GreenhouseGases already emitted.
"The best available evidence shows that, on the contrary, warming is likely to more or less stop once #CarbonDioxide (CO2) #emissions reach zero, meaning humans have the power to choose their #climate future."
You may hear that #GlobalWarming will continue for decades, even centuries, after #emissions stop.
"But guided by subsequent research, scientists dramatically revised that lag time estimate down to as little as three to five years."
THREE to FIVE YEARS
IF emissions go to ZERO.
Humans have our collective hand on the planet's thermostat, and the system reacts swiftly when we turn it down. (For a planet, 3-5 years is DANG fast).
if we treated this as an actual emergency we could get a 32% of so cut in 2 weeks by having wealthy people live like the a average European, since they are the ones making it worse, that seems very fair. Not enough but a huge step in the right direction by the miscreant high emitters.
Alas not enough voters are convinced, I suspect for the same reasons that during an unprecedented European heatwave, they're all still flying for holidays making it worse.
@largess@CelloMomOnCars@DoomsdaysCW you're talking about Europeans flying on holiday, and we're talking about reducing to the EU average, so an occasional flight is probably part of that, right? For me, that's the worst part - the sacrifices that are needed are hardly sacrifices at all.
This is excellent news in terms of what appears to be physically possible and physically realistic.
Whether the sociopolitical issue of #DecisionMaking (governments, corporations, parliaments, law courts) can result in a decision to implement a rapid drop to zero emissions is an open question. It's worth trying.
I do think it's worth hammering on the point that when we stop emissions, we stop global warming. That thinks are not "hopeless" or "out of our hands".
Knowing that it's possible to pull back from disastrous warming is the first step to pushing for the pullback.
"We call the additional warming that will occur once we stop polluting the "#ZeroEmissionsCommitment" (ZEC), and it appears to be very close to zero.
While the ZEC varies among models, in all cases, it's less than plus 0.3 C of additional warming. Given that we're currently at 1.2 C warming over preindustrial levels, this means that there's still a good chance to avert 1.5 C of warming."
IF
we stop emitting carbon.
(is what "zero emissions" means).
@mral@CelloMomOnCars
Mmno, I find that this is not a good explanation and it's still wording things confusingly by mixing "zero emissions" with "net zero emissions". They make the claim that "zero emissions" make the warming stop immediately (which is likely true, but not achievable) and later make the same claim again about "net zero" (which is false).
"Net" zero means emitting only as much as nature is able to absorb back every year, so it corresponds to the "constant concentration" scenario, NOT to the "zero emissions" scenario. So even according to this paper, once you fix the confusing langauge, if we manage to reach NET zero emissions, we should expect warming to continue. Because "net zero" means the same thing as "constant concentration".
"Net zero" is where you burn fossil fuels but do "carbon capture", stick it somewhere, and hope it stays there.
Which is not the same and constant concentration.
@CelloMomOnCars@mral
Whatever the mechanism by which you want to assume the CO2 sources will be balanced out by the sinks, my point stands - the claims being made in the article about "net zero" are misleading, since the author conflates actual-zero (zero human outputs) with "net zero".
Given the numbers on the carbon-capture technology I've seen so far, I'm working on the assumption that it will never scale, so even if it works it will be a drop in the bucket. That's why I say net-zero is a question of how much nature is able to absorb: that is and will likely remain the overwhelming capture mechanism; we won't come anywhere close to matching its efficacy with new technology.
BUT only at the end does he mention the 800 lb gorilla: [if we delay reaching net zero] "there is the potential to lock in more carbon-cycle feedback processes – such as melting permafrost – than under current global temperature levels."
Right now, yes, perhaps, we could turn it around by stopping our own foolishness.
There are tipping points, though. If we reach the point of the peat bogs emitting their carbon, we'll have done ourselves in.
Yes, the bottom line is always that emissions need to go to zero.
On the way there, we'll have growing pains, e.g. an abundance of solar energy without widespread storage capacity. The negative prices are a loud signal that storage solutions need to catch up.
Add comment