For everybody wondering where '16 years' comes from, Google 'Global warming's terrifying new math' by Bill McKibben, so that you can shift from attacking my credibility to his.
I read that article (again - I read it when it was first published) and it doesn't mention the number 16 anywhere.
Look, I am broadly sympathetic to your point of view (I think). I agree we need to take drastic measures to control CO2. I think that fracking and methane hydrate are going to be fucking disasters if we don't start actively sequestering CO2. Actually, I think the methane thing seals the deal - the reductionists have utterly lost and we now need to concentrate on harm mitigation.
None of which changes the fact that you pulled "16 years" out of your ass and what for? What did it get you? I'll tell you - it got you everyone ignoring your main point and concentrating on the (indefensible) number you made up. Well, I hope you learned your lesson.
>In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school.
The article was written in July of 2012. At the time of writing the estimated global carbon budget (the amount of carbon we can burn without increasing global temperature more than 2 degrees celsius) was 565 gigatons.
Carbon emissions in 2011 were estimated at 31.6 gigatons, a 3.2% increase over 2010, according to the article, and assuming a 3% growth rate in carbon emissions, we'll hit the limit in 16 years.
For the record, according to the journal Nature Climate Change (via the BBC, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20556703), total carbon emissions were higher in 2011 than reported in McKibben's article, given that we reached an estimated 35.6 gigatons in 2012, reported to be an increase of 2.6% over the previous year.
So, yeah, it's in the article, I'm sorry you have a hard time giving such an important piece of information a close reading, but there you go.
And I didn't call you a liar. The world isn't black and white like that, OK?
Nonetheless, you singled out this easily-missable page 2 speculation and cast it out like a solid gold internationally accepted fact. That's what I, and perhaps others, took issue with. I'm not disagreeing with you just to be an asshole. Nothing drastic is going to happen in 16.0 years.
The funny thing is I basically agree with you, but you should stop hanging your entire arguments on obscure, debatable predictions from page two of articles on some site last year.
> >I hope you learned your lesson
> Indeed.
Learn the right lesson. People are not out to attack you, well not me anyway. Just change the way you construct the argument.
Gee, sorry for trying to be helpful and trying to have an adult discussion.
Right, yeah, whatever; on the question of did X article from Y years ago happen to contain the number 16 then you were right and I was wrong. Congrats.
Look, I am broadly sympathetic to your point of view (I think). I agree we need to take drastic measures to control CO2. I think that fracking and methane hydrate are going to be fucking disasters if we don't start actively sequestering CO2. Actually, I think the methane thing seals the deal - the reductionists have utterly lost and we now need to concentrate on harm mitigation.
None of which changes the fact that you pulled "16 years" out of your ass and what for? What did it get you? I'll tell you - it got you everyone ignoring your main point and concentrating on the (indefensible) number you made up. Well, I hope you learned your lesson.