D-Penguin, your common sense approach makes sense, but two counter-effects undermine it:
* The Earth is much warmer than it was at 280 ppm, so part of the warming effect has already been "equalized". 410 ppm does not necessarily mean more warming - it depends whether we have reached a new equilibrium already. (We haven't though).
* Natural sinks will draw down some of the CO2 in the atmosphere each year, so actual zero emissions will result in a slow downtrend of CO2 concentration. (But these sinks are shrinking and natural emissions are rising,, so we should hurry up).
So warming will continue only for a relatively short time. How long? That's beyond my pay grade.
OTOH, actual zero emissions is something that is very hard to achieve, so don't hold your breath.
[/quote]
Thank you very much for your reply to my post and directly addressing the issue that I raised.
However, I still have difficulty in understand the argument.
"The Earth is much warmer than it was at 280 ppm, so part of the warming effect has already been "equalized"..."
The sun continues to shine adding to the net global heat energy balance every day. So, how does the warming become equalized?
"Natural sinks will draw down some of the CO2 in the atmosphere each year..."
Does this mean that the level of atmospheric CO2 must be reduced by sinks to a level that will allow radiation of heat back into space to equate heat gain with heat loss and thereby stabilize the global heat balance?
Any answer(s)/reference(s) my questions would be much appreciated.