You often hear that so-and-so much #GlobalWarming is "baked in", that is, the world keeps on warming on the #GreenhouseGases already emitted.
"The best available evidence shows that, on the contrary, warming is likely to more or less stop once #CarbonDioxide (CO2) #emissions reach zero, meaning humans have the power to choose their #climate future."
@mral@CelloMomOnCars
Mmno, I find that this is not a good explanation and it's still wording things confusingly by mixing "zero emissions" with "net zero emissions". They make the claim that "zero emissions" make the warming stop immediately (which is likely true, but not achievable) and later make the same claim again about "net zero" (which is false).
"Net" zero means emitting only as much as nature is able to absorb back every year, so it corresponds to the "constant concentration" scenario, NOT to the "zero emissions" scenario. So even according to this paper, once you fix the confusing langauge, if we manage to reach NET zero emissions, we should expect warming to continue. Because "net zero" means the same thing as "constant concentration".
"Net zero" is where you burn fossil fuels but do "carbon capture", stick it somewhere, and hope it stays there.
Which is not the same and constant concentration.
@CelloMomOnCars@mral
That entirely political interpretation would have no place in a scientific study trying to work out exact numbers, but even if it did, it would only further prove my point that the claims being made in the article about "net zero" are misleading, since the author conflates actual-zero with "net zero".
@CelloMomOnCars@mral
No, that was a misunderstanding, I've edited in the meantime. It's unrealistic and immaterial to my argument. The article is misleading, it mixes zero-zero with net-zero no matter how you want to say net-zero would be achieved.