Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?  (Read 13002 times)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3359
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #150 on: August 07, 2020, 11:51:53 AM »
So every square meter of the planet has the equivalent of a 3.2?watt bulb burning on it.
What is the wattage of a small penlight bulb?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2275
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 19386
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #151 on: August 07, 2020, 01:48:33 PM »
Tom, I think that the 3.2W is from the extra GHG in the atmosphere since pre-industrial. It is not the total incoming power and it is not the same for all places on Earth. You could say that the cumulative radiative forcing is a force that changes the pre-industrial climate equilibrium. In our case to much higher temperatures because of a positive force (and a high climate sensitivity).
So the light bulb is much stronger than 3.2W and uses no batteries :).
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3359
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #152 on: August 07, 2020, 01:59:31 PM »
Yes, I know there is a lot of illumination. I meant the extra illumination.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #153 on: August 07, 2020, 02:04:42 PM »
Tom, I think that the 3.2W is from the extra GHG in the atmosphere since pre-industrial. It is not the total incoming power and it is not the same for all places on Earth. You could say that the cumulative radiative forcing is a force that changes the pre-industrial climate equilibrium. In our case to much higher temperatures because of a positive force (and a high climate sensitivity).
So the light bulb is much stronger than 3.2W and uses no batteries :).

The radiative forcing from the GHG is 3.2 W/sq.m, which corresponds to 1.2 K or so in average increased temperatures. The other effect you talk about is not a forcing per se, but are various feedback processes.

https://scienceofdoom.com/2014/06/26/the-greenhouse-effect-explained-in-simple-terms/#comment-153310

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #154 on: August 12, 2020, 01:43:25 PM »
Losing the remaining Arctic sea ice and its ability to reflect incoming solar energy back to space would be equivalent to adding one trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, on top of the 2.4 trillion tons emitted since the Industrial Age, according to current and former researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego.

At current rates, this roughly equates to 25 years of global CO2 emissions.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-loss-arctics-reflective-sea-ice-will-advance-global-warming-25-years

So this exactly the sort of thing we try to avoid. And the effect should build as we lose ice along the way.

Can we avert this at our current rate? With actual realized global reductions because that is how the planet counts? I doubt it.

Posted to wrong thread? Its an old story and a bad paper.

They've only looked at the summer and ignored the winter and generalised from the summer to a year round effect. Loss of ice in winter is cooling, not heating and its a dominant effect not a trivial one. This is a number for what would happen if the ice were removed in April, kept in a cold store in Svalbard over the summer, and then replaced at the end of September.

This is a common mistake and a common alarmist cherry pick. Ice insulates and when it goes missing the effects are opposite in winter to what they are in summer.

Lets start with another paper:

Summary
The Arctic Ocean will become ice free during summer before mid-century unless greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly reduced.

Notz and Stroeve 2018
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-018-0113-2

This is the abstract of the actual paper:

Abstract
During recent decades, there has been dramatic Arctic sea ice retreat. This has reduced the top‐of‐atmosphere albedo, adding more solar energy to the climate system. There is substantial uncertainty regarding how much ice retreat and associated solar heating will occur in the future. This is relevant to future climate projections, including the timescale for reaching global warming stabilization targets. Here we use satellite observations to estimate the amount of solar energy that would be added in the worst‐case scenario of a complete disappearance of Arctic sea ice throughout the sunlit part of the year. Assuming constant cloudiness, we calculate a global radiative heating of 0.71 W/m2 relative to the 1979 baseline state. This is equivalent to the effect of one trillion tons of CO2 emissions. These results suggest that the additional heating due to complete Arctic sea ice loss would hasten global warming by an estimated 25 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082914

I don´t think they actually extrapolate. It is just the effect they calculate.

And that is why we should tried to avoid this although at our current rate that is going to be hard.

*

There is a bit of a problem with the pathways. They are not really useful.
This is also because they forgot to define dangerous.

We know that we want to avoid certain feedbacks like:
Loss of arctic sea ice (failing in the thirties)
Permafrost becoming a source (already done)
Triggering Iceland and Antarctica

So if we just take the Arctic ice as a safe point it is clear that collectively we should have done a lot more.

Combine this with the knowledge that we wont slow that fast because we are not planning to and the fact that the effect lingers even if we go zero overnight then saving the ice looks really iffy.



Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3359
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #155 on: August 12, 2020, 03:47:02 PM »
Quote
Triggering Iceland and Antarctica
And Greenland.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #156 on: August 12, 2020, 08:21:41 PM »
Yes Greenland not Iceland.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Simon

  • New ice
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #157 on: August 12, 2020, 08:43:56 PM »
May not be the right thread but as Arctic summer sea ice is being referred to, the latest modelling indicates circa 2035 for its first disappearance.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200810113216.htm


mitch

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #158 on: August 12, 2020, 09:39:45 PM »
The Guarino et al (2020) study that gave 2035 for BOE used CMIP6 models, which tend to have higher equilibrium climate sensitivity, and added the melt pond physics.  While it appears that 2035 is plausible, I will wait for more confirmation.  Or, we can all wait 15 years and see for ourselves. 

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #159 on: August 12, 2020, 10:40:20 PM »
Adding physics that actually happen will improve the forecast. 15 years is quite short climate wise.

I am quite happy to wait but i maintain that the planet does not have that luxury because when we know it happened it is too late. And we know it is happening although we much like to ignore it.

You can draw lines and extrapolate some time number in the future but we must also weigh that vs what is already locked in.

And think about the consequences that actually brings.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

ArcTickTock

  • New ice
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #160 on: August 14, 2020, 06:22:08 AM »
May not be the right thread but as Arctic summer sea ice is being referred to, the latest modelling indicates circa 2035 for its first disappearance.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200810113216.htm

2035 seems about right, right around there is when the trend line for arctic sea ice volume at minimum reaches 0.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3359
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #161 on: August 14, 2020, 12:50:24 PM »
May not be the right thread but as Arctic summer sea ice is being referred to, the latest modelling indicates circa 2035 for its first disappearance.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200810113216.htm

2035 seems about right, right around there is when the trend line for arctic sea ice volume at minimum reaches 0.

Of course that assumes we don't have a fluke event like 2012, which would bring it about sooner.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #162 on: August 15, 2020, 09:50:11 PM »
Warming Greenland Ice Sheet Passes Point of No Return
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-greenland-ice-sheet.html

Nearly 40 years of satellite data from Greenland shows that glaciers on the island have shrunk so much that even if global warming were to stop today, the ice sheet would continue shrinking.

See the link for the details but this is another one we can add. We are on overtime on this one too.

If you had asked me about 25 years ago what scenes i would imagine when this news broke i could not have come up with this.

Since this fact of Greenland melt is true today it also demonstrates that 1,5 C is not a safe goal.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #163 on: August 15, 2020, 10:56:25 PM »
May not be the right thread but as Arctic summer sea ice is being referred to, the latest modelling indicates circa 2035 for its first disappearance.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200810113216.htm

2035 seems about right, right around there is when the trend line for arctic sea ice volume at minimum reaches 0.

Of course that assumes we don't have a fluke event like 2012, which would bring it about sooner.

If we go back through the historical record all the recent conditions are from icy conditions. ESAS has been melting for 12k years or so and it is only going to get worse.

We are heading into territory we know less well. Yes we have historical analogues but the data points are less scarce at that end. And you can combine that with the things we cannot model well.

We do not know where we are going to end up but we could have used some points of no return. Things we should have avoided. But those where glossed over for economic gains and bs discounting on those measures.

Even if we would hit the Paris goals we would still be in a world were the Arctic ice is doomed, Greenland too. And probably Antarctica is already in play too.

That is our world today.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

liefde

  • New ice
  • Posts: 55
  • ice melt will trump donald
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #164 on: August 31, 2020, 11:38:51 PM »
Yes Greenland not Iceland.
Eeh.. remember the Ok glacier in Iceland? Declared "dead" in 2014..

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #165 on: September 10, 2020, 08:45:34 PM »
To finalize my update on greenhouse gases here is the summary of the four postings in the individual gas concentration threads.

More radiative forcing of the "NOAA gases" (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6) in May 2020 than in Apr 2020 or in May 2019.

The values [W/m²], change to Apr 2020 and change to May 2019:
CO2 2.170   (+ 0.011)    (+ 0.031)   
CH4 0.520   (+ 0.000)    (+ 0.005)
N2O 0.205   (+ 0.000)    (+ 0.004)
SF6  0.0053 (+ 0.0000)  (+ 0.0002)
sum  2.900  (+ 0.011)   (+ 0.040)

The relative annual increase is 1.36 %.
It also means never before since we measure these gases has their radiative forcing been so strong.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 08:56:37 PM by Stephan »
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #166 on: September 12, 2020, 06:27:48 PM »
Where does the heat go?

This study calculates that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must be reduced from the present concentration of nearly 410 ppm to approximately 350 ppm to bring the Earth back towards energy balance.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/where-does-heat-go

See the article for details but hey look another piece of evidence that we are well into overshoot.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2275
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 19386
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #167 on: September 12, 2020, 07:08:27 PM »
280 ppm is the pre-industrial level. Reaching that means returning to nature's original track. That should be the goal. To undo the damage we've done.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 545
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #168 on: September 12, 2020, 07:35:37 PM »
280 ppm is the pre-industrial level. Reaching that means returning to nature's original track. That should be the goal. To undo the damage we've done.

Back on this old nonsense eh nanning? It would have been better had humans never evolved! But then that would mean blaming... nature?

At 280ppm we were heading into a glacial period.

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #169 on: September 12, 2020, 08:42:21 PM »
A short explanation of this plot would be helpful, wdmn, including the designation of x and y axes.
I guess it is worldwide temperature the last 10,000 years?
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 369
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #170 on: September 12, 2020, 10:20:10 PM »
wdmn, I know nanning can seem tiresomely simplistic and repetitive sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that somehow we have managed in quite a short time to turn the earth from a 'goldilocks' climate into something more and more resembling a fiery hell.

It is at least as important, and arguably much more, to try to figure out how we got here so we can figure out exactly what we have to stop doing (and thinking), as it is to understand the nuances of the science that tells us what is happening to sea ice on a day by day basis.

Humans 'evolved' to have thousands of different cultures around the world. Arguably, it is only one of those, modern industrial culture and society (at first Western, now global), that has pushed the world to and probably past the point that it will be readily habitable by future generations.

So questioning where we went wrong is not the same as being against all human evolution, lol.

Maybe we have to look further back than the industrial revolution. Maybe it was the particular way the industrial revolution developed that holds the key. In any case, the issue is not one that should, imo, be lightly tossed under the rug.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 545
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #171 on: September 12, 2020, 11:19:00 PM »
@Stephen

My apologies.

The graph comes from: https://twitter.com/alxrdk/status/1295016785180270594

The time period (x-axis) is 12,000 years, 9980 BC - 2020 AD.
Baseline is 20th century mean. Minimum temperature shown = -1.37°C, Max T = 0.99°C (2020).

Sources for the data are provided in the above linked twitter thread.

The graph shows the end of the last glacial period, the Holocene and the Anthropocene (if you are so inclined to use the latter designation). The Holocene is the period in which agriculture and settled human civilization was born. Humans of course lived during the last glacial period, but were not present in large parts of currently inhabited land, as that land was under thick ice sheets.

I used this graph, because it very clearly shows the slow arc down from the Holocene maximum temperature. That arc had us on the trajectory to another glacial period, which would be -- one could argue -- at least as devastating to human civilization as global heating now threatens to be.

@wili

I of course agree that we are in a dire situation regarding climate change, as is unanimously stated by the most reputable climate scientists. The 350 ppm target was set by one of those same scientists, James Hansen.

While the consequences of industrialization are now threatening human civilization, I think it is ridiculous to dismiss the whole period as a cancer that should be done away with. I simply want to point out that the pre-industrial target would also condemn human civilization.

I also question the 280ppm target as arbitrary; it already includes human activity throughout the Holocene, so why is that "nature's track" as it was intended?. Why not "put it back as it was" before the Holocene? Before humans? What is "undoing the harm?" What is nature's track, if not the one that we're on? That of course includes the possibility that we address global heating before it does as much damage as it might (i.e. that we might completely overhaul our culture, including learning from those non-industrialized cultures that still exist).

Nanning's logic -- as has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseam -- presumes that humans have no right to take actions that affect nature's path, while at the same time declaring that we should make a decision to go back to one specific point in nature's path (i.e. making the human decision as to what nature's path should be; i.e. doing the same thing he condemns when we set the target at 350 ppm). He also seems to condemn human beings to either being passive animals that accept whatever fate is handed to us by "nature" (we should allow a glacial period or an astroid to hit us, even if we could avoid it, for example; which condemns nature for giving us a survival instinct and the ability to practice climate science or astronomy, etc.), or to eliminate us completely from nature (which, as pointed out, condemns nature, which gave rise to our species).
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 11:41:01 PM by wdmn »

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2275
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 19386
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #172 on: September 13, 2020, 07:39:08 AM »
Quote from: wdmn
Back on this old nonsense eh nanning?
Nanning's logic -- as has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseam -- presumes

That's not my logic you describe wdmn. That's your logic projected onto me.
I won't react further to your unkind words and charges.
Main point is: high technology comes with high responsibility and we are not alone on this planet and this planet is not ours to spoil.

edit: added quotes
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 08:26:24 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 369
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #173 on: September 13, 2020, 02:27:30 PM »
I don't presume to speak for nanning.

But again I would point out that humans have devised thousands of different ways to live in the world without destroying it, and presumably there are countless more ways.

Global civilization seems to have hit on the one way to live in the world that destroys most other forms of life as well as disrupting the systems that support said life.

Our most desperate need is to rediscover a culture/way of life that fosters rather than obliterates the rest of the living community.

Any ideas? :)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3359
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #174 on: September 13, 2020, 02:49:33 PM »
I am sure mammoths, saber tooth tigers, mastodons, teratorns et al would dispute that global industrial civilization is the only one that exterminates other species.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 369
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #175 on: September 13, 2020, 04:09:56 PM »
Yes, as humans left their original homelands in Africa, we probably wiped out a number of large species, being basically an invasive species ourselves. There is still some debate about which ones were wiped out by us and which failed to adapt to changing climates.

But those extinctions pale compared to the global mass extinctions and destruction of ecosystems going on today.

And once humans did settle in any particular area, they tended to fairly quickly develop a set of taboos to avoid wiping out crucial local and fauna. If they didn't they would generally not last very long.

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2275
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 19386
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #176 on: September 13, 2020, 06:25:22 PM »
Thank you wili. Beautiful. :)
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #177 on: September 13, 2020, 08:44:03 PM »
And also off topic.

280 is moot if we cannot even get close to 350.
And extinctions belong in another thread.

Also to taboos:
I think that is wrong.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 08:57:20 PM by kassy »
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2275
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 19386
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #178 on: September 14, 2020, 05:06:52 AM »
Thank you for letting it stand, moderator kassy.

"280 is moot if we cannot even get close to 350."
Indeed. It's completely academic.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?