Maximum,

This notion that you can simply plug a few numbers into a spreadsheet and hey-presto get the answer as to how much CO2 we can emit over the next century or so, is bonkers. Only those who truly want to be deceived could buy it. 565gt is the answer. 564gt and everything is hunky-dory. 566gt and w're all gunna die. Oh dear!. The sorites paradox on steroids.

Let's go back to first principles. For such a calculation to be valid, we need to know that components of the sum are individually valid. 2 apples + 2 apples makes 4 apples only if we know that one of them isn't an orange or a plastic apple replica.

So let's look at the components:

*2 degrees as the upper limit. But that's a made up number. Its a political figure not a scientific one. There's no science to say 2 is the magic number. I've walked you through this before but, since it suits your prejudices to believe it, mere facts won't make a difference, so I won't regurgitate that lesson.

* the assumption that we know exactly how much warming each gt of CO2 will create. We don't know that. Anyone even passingly familiar with the TCR/ECS debate would know that. Even the IPCC offers (wide) ranges for them. A doubling of CO2 levels might mean a warming of anywhere between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees if all else remains unchanged. If one of the inputs is a range, definitionally th answer has to be a range. See if this works - 50 to 100 apples + 50 to 100 apples equals exactly 155 apples. See the logic failure there?

/TBC

/continued

* the assumption that we know exactly how much CO2 is added for each gt of coal etc is burnt. We don't. It depends on many factors. And even if we did know that number now, we don't know into the future what technologies might change that. But so much of this alarmism is based on unstated assumptions that there'll be no technological advances - that our descendents are all gunna be morons who don't innovate.

To make this easier for you, take the alcohol blood metaphor used. A limit is set which claims to be valid (but is different in different places!!) but has iffy science behind it. But we don't know how many drinks get us to that limit. It depends on too many factors to be of value - age, gender, body mass, last meal, 'time of the month', and myriad other factors.

But Max, I guess none of this matters since you just want it to be true and and wanting trumps knowing.

Just one other point to your claim that "Limit = 2 degrees: IPCC says we can’t go above 2 degrees or we get into feedbacks". What? We get into feedbacks at 2 degrees? No, we've always been into feedbacks. The whole scare is about feedbacks. Without feedbacks there is no AGW scare. Feedbacks always occur. The first time some amoeba emitted CO2 there were feedbacks. The first time some proto-human stoked a fire they created feedbacks. I wish I had some words to describe how utterly wrong your claim is but your ignorance trumps my lexicon. Kudos.

You're absolutely right, the 2 degree limit IS political.

The science is starting to show that NO warming is acceptable, as Bill McKibben (the author of that Rolling Stones piece) would say only 350ppm is safe.

Oh, and 350ppm is pretty much - in summary - what the science says. That science you disagree with every time you run off to a denialist website to try and disprove it.

The main points that deniers try to push are that CO2 has little impact on global warming, there has been a hiatus in temperature increase, sea level rise is not happening, and there are no matters of concern in relation to Antarctica.

Nine criteria/principles pull apart the matter of CO2 having no impact. A number of physical and computer experiments have taken place. To give any credence to what deniers say they need to be able to provide object comments in relation to the nine criteria points.

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.joydizarj

Last year Ocean temperature was a real feature to what has been happening. The Oceans happen to make up around 70% of Earth's surface. Satellite data shows how the Oceans have been picking up temperature, and sea level rise has been measured.

https://youtu.be/aDB7QBjxoW8

So where deniers bring up their comments about CO2, a hiatus, and lack of sea level rise etc they are pushing "alternative facts". "Alternative facts" are bull dust at best; and lies at worst.

After the minimum sea ice level had been measured in September 2016 there had been a large increase in sea ice for a few days afterwards; since then, the situation changed and sea ice extent remained at record low levels ever since. Sea ice volume, ice thickness and sea ice extent have been changing downward for decades.

Up welling of warm waters during storm periods has been found to attack sea ice from underneath; previously postulated, and found to be true by the N-ICE2015 Norwegian research team which overwintered the Arctic in 2015.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1611.0;attach=40816;image

The Larson C ice sheet in Antarctica is about to void an area 2,000 square miles in size. The concern being that grounding lines will be undermined.

SO TRUE! Word, Geroge Monbiot. Word.

"I first encountered the machine when writing about climate change. The fury and loathing directed at climate scientists and campaigners seemed incomprehensible until I realised they were fake: the hatred had been paid for. The bloggers and institutes whipping up this anger were funded by oil and coal companies."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation?CMP=share_btn_fb