>There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology.

But the technology has been rapidly getting more economical, and in some ways is now actually cheaper than fossil fuels (which also has many negative externalities of its own). And this has been happening only because there has been an enormous investment in renewable energy. The idea that the scientists all on their own will work for decades and come up with fully-ready technologies that then will be put into full production is just not how these things actually work.

There are far greater costs to not cutting emissions now. 15-40% of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1000 years: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Your link pretty much says "on average the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 3-4 years, but if we change the definition, then it's up to 1000 years".

No it does not. For a supposed MIT grad with a PhD I would expect excellent reading comprehension and the ability to understand scientific fields even when outside of your main one. Given your comments and misunderstandings here and elsewhere I am inclined to think you are not. Read the IPCC reports, if you don't have time, look at the summary for policy makers, particularly the physical science basis.

Do you understand the difference between average and 15-40%? How about the difference between average and median, non-normal distributions, etc.?

There's no changing of definitions from anyone except yourself in your misleading "quote".

Here's a more accessible article: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12...