Tjyylli

How could an airship be repaired midflight?

Do the common programs (for example: "ls", "cat") in Linux and BSD come from the same source code?

Fastest way to pop N items from a large dict

Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day

Are Roman Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor

Custom alignment for GeoMarkers

How to terminate ping <dest> &

Recruiter wants very extensive technical details about all of my previous work

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

This word with a lot of past tenses

Why is a white electrical wire connected to 2 black wires?

Book about superhumans hiding among normal humans

How to plot polar formed complex numbers?

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

Welcoming 2019 Pi day: How to draw the letter π?

Why does a Star of David appear at a rally with Francisco Franco?

Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?

A single argument pattern definition applies to multiple-argument patterns?

Aluminum electrolytic or ceramic capacitors for linear regulator input and output?

Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?

If I can solve Sudoku, can I solve the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP)? If so, how?

Is there a place to find the pricing for things not mentioned in the PHB? (non-magical)

ERC721: How to get the owned tokens of an address

What's the meaning of a knight fighting a snail in medieval book illustrations?

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 58 mins 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 58 mins 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 58 mins ago

y chungy chung

20516

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

asked 58 mins ago

y chungy chung

20516

share|improve this question

asked 58 mins ago

y chungy chung

20516

asked 58 mins ago

y chungy chung

20516

asked 58 mins 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 13 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 13 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 13 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 13 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 13 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295

answered 13 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295

answered 13 mins ago

Camilo RadaCamilo Rada

12.8k54295