This story is unavailable.

David, if temperatures have risen 0.65C since 1945 and that is 25% increase in Co2 (300 to 400ppm from 1945 to 2010)

No, that’s 0.64C from 1950 to 2010; 312 ppm to 389 ppm. Do you intend to keep misquoting me?

then the remaining 75% which brings us 300ppm more (3x25% 3x100 using your numbers) or 700ppm which is considerably over what I feel is feasible for Co2.

Incorrect; 700ppm is not double 312ppm (edit: also note that when most people talk about doubling CO2, they mean it with respect to pre-industrial times, thus 280 to 285ppm times 2.)

To get 300ppm in the next 80 years is ~4ppm / year continuously for 80 + years. We are currently between 2–3ppm per year. So we need to massively increase our co2 output and keep it up for 80 years.

You’re assuming a linear relationship between the emission rate and the increase in atmospheric CO2. Climate scientists believe the relationship is not linear.

Good luck on that. This is how almost all predictions fail. Exponential predictions fail. My best guess is we peak at 550ppm sometime around 2080.

As I explained, scientists do not predict that CO2 will double.

Now consider what you are saying about temperature. I’m asking you to consider how this 1.35C change will happen in 80 years

You seem to have pulled this number out of thin air. Please review my two previous responses.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.