About the actual radiative impact of greenhouse gas emission over timeWhat is a reasonable forecast of sea level in 2100?How much of Earth's forested land is currently protected from logging/deforestation?Is it possible that a reduction in vegetation is a cause of global warming?Would ultra-efficient carbon sequestrion produce immediate results in global temperatures?Which greenhouse gas does the most damage to crops?How can every ton of CO2 cost 3 square meters of summer sea ice per year - quantitatively?Status of overdue glaciation hypothesisWhat evidence is backing the claim that the CO₂ we're releasing in the atmosphere is the main cause of climate change?Intuition on overall effects from climate change under different levels of warmingGreenhouse gas emissions from wildfires in California
PTIJ: Who should I vote for? (21st Knesset Edition)
What's the meaning of a knight fighting a snail in medieval book illustrations?
Custom alignment for GeoMarkers
Most cost effective thermostat setting: consistent temperature vs. lowest temperature possible
Is it good practice to use Linear Least-Squares with SMA?
Fastest way to pop N items from a large dict
Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?
New passport but visa is in old (lost) passport
How to get the n-th line after a grepped one?
Do I need life insurance if I can cover my own funeral costs?
How to pronounce "I ♥ Huckabees"?
Why Choose Less Effective Armour Types?
How could an airship be repaired midflight?
What are substitutions for coconut in curry?
About the actual radiative impact of greenhouse gas emission over time
Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?
Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?
Knife as defense against stray dogs
Employee lack of ownership
How to make healing in an exploration game interesting
World War I as a war of liberals against authoritarians?
Bacteria contamination inside a thermos bottle
Describing a chess game in a novel
I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?
About the actual radiative impact of greenhouse gas emission over time
What is a reasonable forecast of sea level in 2100?How much of Earth's forested land is currently protected from logging/deforestation?Is it possible that a reduction in vegetation is a cause of global warming?Would ultra-efficient carbon sequestrion produce immediate results in global temperatures?Which greenhouse gas does the most damage to crops?How can every ton of CO2 cost 3 square meters of summer sea ice per year - quantitatively?Status of overdue glaciation hypothesisWhat evidence is backing the claim that the CO₂ we're releasing in the atmosphere is the main cause of climate change?Intuition on overall effects from climate change under different levels of warmingGreenhouse gas emissions from wildfires in California
$begingroup$
Say we will emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas over the next 50 years (e.g. 100 billion tons CO2-eq in total). What would happen if I implement a certain GHG mitigation effort to cut the same amount of GHG (say sequester 20 billion tons CO2-eq) in the early years (e.g. year 0-10) vs in later years (year 40-50)?
I would imagine that cutting the gas earlier would be better since overall global warming is a cascade of positive feedbacks? A bunch of other similar questions can be asked like cutting the same amount of GHG over first 10 years (but no cutting thereafter) vs spread out the cutting to the entire 50 years. What are some major consideration to look at? Is it generally better to cut GHG as early as possible?
climate-change climate-models greenhouse-gases radiation-balance
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Say we will emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas over the next 50 years (e.g. 100 billion tons CO2-eq in total). What would happen if I implement a certain GHG mitigation effort to cut the same amount of GHG (say sequester 20 billion tons CO2-eq) in the early years (e.g. year 0-10) vs in later years (year 40-50)?
I would imagine that cutting the gas earlier would be better since overall global warming is a cascade of positive feedbacks? A bunch of other similar questions can be asked like cutting the same amount of GHG over first 10 years (but no cutting thereafter) vs spread out the cutting to the entire 50 years. What are some major consideration to look at? Is it generally better to cut GHG as early as possible?
climate-change climate-models greenhouse-gases radiation-balance
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Say we will emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas over the next 50 years (e.g. 100 billion tons CO2-eq in total). What would happen if I implement a certain GHG mitigation effort to cut the same amount of GHG (say sequester 20 billion tons CO2-eq) in the early years (e.g. year 0-10) vs in later years (year 40-50)?
I would imagine that cutting the gas earlier would be better since overall global warming is a cascade of positive feedbacks? A bunch of other similar questions can be asked like cutting the same amount of GHG over first 10 years (but no cutting thereafter) vs spread out the cutting to the entire 50 years. What are some major consideration to look at? Is it generally better to cut GHG as early as possible?
climate-change climate-models greenhouse-gases radiation-balance
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
$endgroup$
Say we will emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas over the next 50 years (e.g. 100 billion tons CO2-eq in total). What would happen if I implement a certain GHG mitigation effort to cut the same amount of GHG (say sequester 20 billion tons CO2-eq) in the early years (e.g. year 0-10) vs in later years (year 40-50)?
I would imagine that cutting the gas earlier would be better since overall global warming is a cascade of positive feedbacks? A bunch of other similar questions can be asked like cutting the same amount of GHG over first 10 years (but no cutting thereafter) vs spread out the cutting to the entire 50 years. What are some major consideration to look at? Is it generally better to cut GHG as early as possible?
climate-change climate-models greenhouse-gases radiation-balance
climate-change climate-models greenhouse-gases radiation-balance
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
asked 1 hour ago
y chungy chung
20516
20516
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is no doubt that the sooner the mitigation effort happens, the greater will be its impact.
In other words, the impact on year 2100 climate of the sequestration of 20 billion tons $ceCO2$-eq right now, is much bigger than the impact that the same action will have in 30 years from now. Therefore, a mitigation action today is much cheaper than one done in the future but with equal impact on year 2100 climate (assuming no dramatic changes in the sequestration technology).
This is due to the long lifetime of $ceCO2$ in the atmosphere, that is usually estimated to be longer than a few centuries. Although, some sources place the lower limit at around 30 years, its lifetime is most likely longer than 50 years.
This means that any $ceCO2$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "553"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fearthscience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16491%2fabout-the-actual-radiative-impact-of-greenhouse-gas-emission-over-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is no doubt that the sooner the mitigation effort happens, the greater will be its impact.
In other words, the impact on year 2100 climate of the sequestration of 20 billion tons $ceCO2$-eq right now, is much bigger than the impact that the same action will have in 30 years from now. Therefore, a mitigation action today is much cheaper than one done in the future but with equal impact on year 2100 climate (assuming no dramatic changes in the sequestration technology).
This is due to the long lifetime of $ceCO2$ in the atmosphere, that is usually estimated to be longer than a few centuries. Although, some sources place the lower limit at around 30 years, its lifetime is most likely longer than 50 years.
This means that any $ceCO2$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is no doubt that the sooner the mitigation effort happens, the greater will be its impact.
In other words, the impact on year 2100 climate of the sequestration of 20 billion tons $ceCO2$-eq right now, is much bigger than the impact that the same action will have in 30 years from now. Therefore, a mitigation action today is much cheaper than one done in the future but with equal impact on year 2100 climate (assuming no dramatic changes in the sequestration technology).
This is due to the long lifetime of $ceCO2$ in the atmosphere, that is usually estimated to be longer than a few centuries. Although, some sources place the lower limit at around 30 years, its lifetime is most likely longer than 50 years.
This means that any $ceCO2$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is no doubt that the sooner the mitigation effort happens, the greater will be its impact.
In other words, the impact on year 2100 climate of the sequestration of 20 billion tons $ceCO2$-eq right now, is much bigger than the impact that the same action will have in 30 years from now. Therefore, a mitigation action today is much cheaper than one done in the future but with equal impact on year 2100 climate (assuming no dramatic changes in the sequestration technology).
This is due to the long lifetime of $ceCO2$ in the atmosphere, that is usually estimated to be longer than a few centuries. Although, some sources place the lower limit at around 30 years, its lifetime is most likely longer than 50 years.
This means that any $ceCO2$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
$endgroup$
There is no doubt that the sooner the mitigation effort happens, the greater will be its impact.
In other words, the impact on year 2100 climate of the sequestration of 20 billion tons $ceCO2$-eq right now, is much bigger than the impact that the same action will have in 30 years from now. Therefore, a mitigation action today is much cheaper than one done in the future but with equal impact on year 2100 climate (assuming no dramatic changes in the sequestration technology).
This is due to the long lifetime of $ceCO2$ in the atmosphere, that is usually estimated to be longer than a few centuries. Although, some sources place the lower limit at around 30 years, its lifetime is most likely longer than 50 years.
This means that any $ceCO2$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
answered 52 mins ago
Camilo RadaCamilo Rada
12.8k54295
12.8k54295
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Earth Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fearthscience.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f16491%2fabout-the-actual-radiative-impact-of-greenhouse-gas-emission-over-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
