3 ms·
It's too bad, because I think people need to be able to make at least a simple version of the argument for themselves, from premises, rather than simply relying
by tunesmith 7y ago
It's too bad, because I think people need to be able to make at least a simple version of the argument for themselves, from premises, rather than simply relying on "Scientists say..."
Edit: Another example. The source you listed says the world is emitting just under 10 GtC/year. Another source I've recently seen said we are emitting 37.1 GtC/year. I've also heard 54/year but don't remember where. I mean, these numbers aren't even close.
- skybrian 7y agoHmm, I didn't see where it says 10 GtC/year, but perhaps I missed it. Could you be more specific? Looking at Figure 2.7 [1] they have "Fossil fuels and industry" at what looks like about 37, which agrees with your other source? The discrepancy in numbers might just be from measuring different things. [1] https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/
- tunesmith 7y agoKey finding #4 in your first link: "The present-day emissions rate of nearly 10 GtC per year suggests that..."
- skybrian 7y agoIt seems to be the difference between carbon emissions and carbon dioxide emissions. From a different web page: "Global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 GtCO2 of carbon dioxide)." https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions Carbon's atomic mass is about 12 and oxygen about 16. CO2 is about 27% carbon by weight.
- tunesmith 7y agoOy. Thanks. I'm really getting a lesson on reading these things more closely.