cypherl t1_ix56nxg wrote
Reply to comment by ChronoPsyche in is it ignorant for me to constantly have the singularity in my mind when discussing the future/issues of the future? by blxoom
I am serious about glaciers. I think you have a good point on the speed. I'm just not sure if dropping us to 200 parts per million for CO2, like that last ice age solves it.
ChronoPsyche t1_ix58csz wrote
Nobody is suggesting dropping us to 200 ppm. The ideal CO2 concentration is considered to be between 280 (preindustrial levels) and low 300s. It would be absolutely safe to drop to those levels.
However, even if we stopped all carbon emissions immidiately, it would take thousands of years to return to those levels naturally.
That's not what "solving climate change" is about. It's about slowing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to levels that are more manageable and to levels that we can more easily adapt to.
If we continue with the current level of emissions we will eventually hit a runaway effect where natural feedback loops are triggered and the effects of climate change accelerate to disastrous levels very quickly and become nearly impossible to stop. That is what we are trying to prevent by lowering emission levels.
No scientists actually believe we can turn back warming in the near and medium term future. That ship sailed long ago. So don't worry, if you aren't living on a glacier right now you won't be in the future either.
cypherl t1_ix5ann9 wrote
Where does the runaway effect take place? 50 million years ago primates existed and we were at 1,000 parts per million. Is it something like 2000 parts per million that really kicks it over?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments