But yes, there is a delay between "stop producing emissions" and "temperature starts going down". CO2 is already high, simply stopping additional output doesn't make the current amount go away overnight and there is still plenty of ice to melt over the seasons in the meantime.
On top of that simple heating time, there are feedback effects like melting permafrost releasing additional greenhouse gases, and (as you mentioned) melting ice reducing the planetary albedo.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Gl...
The polar regions will be decimated even if we manage to save ourselves.
The ramp-up and total of renewables have an unrealistic low ceiling. No matter what, one can not get a clean exponential growth until they dominate the electricity generation, and the only way to make them actually dominate the generation is to destroy every fossil fuel capacity (that last one is highly not realistic).
Fossil fuels are assumed to be available on unlimited amounts. One can simulate their limits, but it takes a lot of care about the integral of the curves. Honestly, I think that the idea that we can double the production of any one that is not coal highly unrealistic.
Technological carbon capture is hilariously underpowered. For a slide that represents "stuff people may invent", it looks like they do not accept anything that wasn't invented yet.
On the other side, they completely ignored all of the huge natural methane reserves around the Earth. If you imagined you could simulate the ocean methane hydrates volatilizing on some rate, well, tough luck.
Overall, it's a restricted simulator around the "business as usual" analysis people do on climate. It is highly unreasonable to expect business to stay as usual for a century, but analysis is tippicaly done that way because there is no better baseline to use. A simulator does not have this restriction, so imposing it by parameter limits is unsettling.
The maximum model settings are for something better: the human race stays around but contributes very little additional CO2 and instead starts making real efforts to remove the CO2 we've already added.
global average temperature is a joke. the earth‘s climate consists of many, many little subclimates making it so that everywhere you need a different weather forecast that often doesn‘t even hold up. it‘s a system nobody can actually simulate.
the other question is how do you deal with measurement errors today — and back in the day when they used quicksilver? quicksilver deviates by at least 1 degree. have the scales been correct? was the person reading the temperature looking at the thermometer correctly?
it‘s all bullcrap based on error prone data, nicely „normalized“ and „corrected“ every year because their whishful predictions don‘t work out.
climate „scientists“ are gonna tell you they cannot explain the entire climate system, yet they give you nice animations scaring the heck out of you. and that‘s all there is: scare. you‘ll happily pay ridiculous prices for ridiculous co2 certificates and that revenue goes into private pockets.
i whish everybody would scale back and throw themselves into the topic. but everybody i talk to just shuts down and elects to follow their church.
water and co2 are the most important ingredients for life. nobody is going to die because of it. don‘t let yourselves be fooled.
disclaimer: yeah, i‘m receiving millions from the oil and coal industries. BILLIONS even!
it‘s the same hockey stick bull crap that gore used to make you cry.
all the models normalize the raw data into oblivion and all the models are not properly adjusted to preindustrialization fluctuation of the climate. also, the models being used have been developed to understand current data and co2-influences — not to extrapulate predictions.