Mrthfx

Are all passive ability checks floors for active ability checks?

How to deal with taxi scam when on vacation?

How do you talk to someone whose loved one is dying?

How to get the n-th line after a grepped one?

Counting models satisfying a boolean formula

How could a scammer know the apps on my phone / iTunes account?

The German vowel “a” changes to the English “i”

Bacteria contamination inside a thermos bottle

Why Choose Less Effective Armour Types?

How to explain that I do not want to visit a country due to personal safety concern?

How to write cleanly even if my character uses expletive language?

A diagram about partial derivatives of f(x,y)

How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?

Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?

ERC721: How to get the owned tokens of an address

If I am holding an item before I cast Blink, will it move with me through the Ethereal Plane?

Are Roman Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor

What is the purpose or proof behind chain rule?

Book about superhumans hiding among normal humans

Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?

Professor being mistaken for a grad student

Adventure Game (text based) in C++

et qui - how do you really understand that kind of phraseology?

What did “the good wine” (τὸν καλὸν οἶνον) mean in John 2:10?

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

5

$begingroup$

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

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

y chungy chung

20516

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

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

share|improve this question

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

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

y chungy chung

20516

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

y chungy chung

20516

share|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

y chungy chung

20516

asked 1 hour ago

y chungy chung

20516

asked 1 hour ago

y chungy chung

20516

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

3

$begingroup$

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 $ce{CO2}$-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 $ce{CO2}$ 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 $ce{CO2}$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.

share|improve this answer

answered 23 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
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

$begingroup$

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 $ce{CO2}$-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 $ce{CO2}$ 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 $ce{CO2}$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.

share|improve this answer

answered 23 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

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 $ce{CO2}$-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 $ce{CO2}$ 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 $ce{CO2}$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.

share|improve this answer

answered 23 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 $ce{CO2}$-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 $ce{CO2}$ 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 $ce{CO2}$ that is not captured today (or emitted), will remain in the atmosphere trapping heat and rising Earth's temperature until year 2100 and beyond.

share|improve this answer

answered 23 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 23 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295

answered 23 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295

answered 23 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295