Shortpoet-GTD, on 05 March 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:
... And many experts have said that even if can
get it back down to 350, we're in for one hell of a ride.
At 395?
...
Yep, at 395, it's already quite deadly.
http://en.wikipedia....rature-plot.svg is well known and accepted science. As you can see on this graph, concentrations of CO2 and temperatures go hand to hand. Now look at the top right corner and see where current CO2 is, that black arrow; then draw a horizontal line to see what temperature would correspond to current CO2 concentration. Me, when i do it, i get +12 degrees celcius.
Certainly it'd probably take several centuries, if not thousands of years, for all feedbacks to happen to their full capacity (like exhausting methane clathrates thus stopping any further release), then feedbacks on feedbacks and so on to kick in, act, and change the temperature by overpowering thermal intertia of the ocean, which possibly would start a new set of feedbacks, and so forth; eventually the system would stabilize, if kept at ~400 ppm CO2, at something comparable to +12. Probably way less due to losses of heat being proportional to 4th power of temperature, which is the most massive negative feedback i know of (it starts to be increasingly powerful the higher temperature climbs, and very fast so), - but something like +7 or +8, will probably be the result of 400 ppm CO2 stable athmospheric concentration. Again, eventually - couple centuries.
But of course, we ain't stopping at 400. As mentioned we are not going to keep it under 450, even - that's pretty sure by now. Personally, i think mankind will manage to climb to some 470...480 ppm of CO2 all by ourselves before modern technological civilization collapse, then nature will dump something like 50...150ppm on top of that from carbon releasese from permafrosts, forest fires, desertification/soil_erosion etc.
3
