In [this page](https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/11/24/even-if-emissions-stop-carbon-dioxide-could-warm-earth-centuries) it says “scientific consensus is temperature would remain constant or decline if emissions were suddenly cut to zero”. There are scenarios in page 74 of this [IPCC report](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf). We can see that in some scenarios CO2 levels are high but temperature remains same or declines. Also, we know that when we cut the emissions CO2 levels in the atmosphere will remain high for centuries. How do these projections work?
I thought earth was getting warmer because of the high levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the scenario that we cut emissions, there will still be high levels of CO2 in our atmosphere but many scientists says temperature won’t go up. What am I missing?
Edit: I believe I haven’t made my point clear. Of course CO2 levels [will start to decrease](https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/readings/ifemmision.pdf) when we cut emissions. However, in the last century, temperature on earth’s atmosphere were increasing due to the greenhouse gases(ghg) in our atmosphere. And when we stop emitting these gases, we will still be having too much ghg in our atmosphere. They will **slowly** be captured by plants and ocean. However, the claim is that even with this high levels, [temperature will stop increasing](https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo813). What is the difference between having high ghg percentage on atmosphere while also emitting, and having high amount of ghg while not emitting?
In: Earth Science
Trees eat CO2, it also gets sequestered in the ocean and in a bunch of other things. Its like the water cycle but slower, there are processes for it to return to earth and come out of the atmosphere.
Its why a lot of nations are planting huge amounts of trees, precisely because we want to work on that side of it too
Latest Answers