Hi John,
Even IPCC admits that there will be dangerous climate change without
negative emissions, by which they mean geoengineering of the CO2 removal
type (CDR). RCP2.6, the only scenario which has a reasonable chance of
keeping global warming below 2 degrees C, relies on negative emissions. So
I am no more confident than you, Greg, that we will reduce emissions by ~2%/y.
That we could do so does not mean we will. My point was simply to address the
argument of some who suggest that that no matter how fast we reduce emissions,
the CO2 level in the atmosphere will continue to rise and
Hi John,
I think you may be forgetting that about half the CO2 emitted is
immediately absorbed by land and oceans. The other half has a long
lifetime, measured in centuries (and a fraction of that measured in
millennia). Thus reducing emissions to zero would only produce a gradual
reduction in t
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-erase-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
(The above link appeared fractured and as now above will connect to the site as
intended)
Motherboard: May 29, 2015 // 03:55 EST.
"Some 10.2 billion tons of coal, sitting on 10
Poster's note : I really like this unusual analysis
http://www.csrhub.com/blog/2015/06/is-it-already-over.html
Is It Already Over?
06/08/2015
Posted by Carol Pierson Holding at 09:45
By: Carol Pierson-Holding
Last week I met a young man who is about to major in environmental
engineering. When h
