3 ms·

First, You haven't shown any evidence to support your claim of a flattening of emissions. Nothing in the data would lead anyone to believe that. Second, what m

by jshen 3y ago

First, You haven't shown any evidence to support your claim of a flattening of emissions. Nothing in the data would lead anyone to believe that. Second, what matters most is the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Here is a graph of that, and it's continuing to increase. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... One reason that the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere matters more than emissions is that we could also be reducing the planet's ability to remove greenhouse gasses through things like deforestation. I wish there were evidence to believe we are on the right track, but there isn't any at this stage. There are positive things, but in aggregate, it's getting worse as of this moment, not better. My evidence is clear, and here. You haven't shown any to support your claims. At this point I can't tell if you are arguing in bad faith, are arguing just to argue, or don't understand the topic. If you don't provide any evidence or sound good faith reasoning after this, I won't reply. edit: typos

wilg 3y ago
I don't know how to explain to you that that graph shows emissions flattening in the last 5 or so years. I guess you just don't want to see it. I never claimed GHG wasn't continuing to increase, though maybe that's what you thought I meant. I meant to discuss the original commenter's opinion that global warming was accelerating. It's not accelerating. It's slowing. Emissions are still increasing, yes, because we don't have a deficit. But increasing isn't the same thing as accelerating. You can also see this in how the actual temperature of the earth (the only metric that matters) has not increased in the past few years. https://climate.nasa.gov/ https://climate.nasa.gov/ (click on "global temperature") Another important metric is that per-capita GHG emissions are declining across the developed world. This indicates we are increasing the efficiency of our society significantly. This is trade-adjusted, so it accounts for emissions embedded in imported goods. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
- jshen 3y ago
  I don't know how to tell you that you can't jump to conclusions from 3 data points. I guess you don't understand that. "I meant to discuss the original commenter's opinion that global warming was accelerating. It's not accelerating. It's slowing." I don't think you can conclude this at this time, but even if you want to believe it, it's still increasing (GHGs in the atmosphere and temperatures), and that's very bad news. "You can also see this in how the actual temperature of the earth (the only metric that matters) has not increased in the past few years" Again, you can't draw conclusions from 3 data points. Not sure if you are arguing in bad faith here, or simply don't understand. Look back at either the temperature graph or the emissions graph and you can find several 3 year periods where it didn't increase, then it shot right back up again. In the case of the last few years of temperatures, that's due to the La Nina (link below) which lowers temperatures, when we switch back to the El Nino it's going to shoot up again, and likely start breaking records again. We are not on the right track, and all of the evidence shows this. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64192508 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64192508
  - wilg 3y ago
    Firstly, you keep lowering the number of data points you’re complaining about. First it was 5, and now 3. Also, I discussed trends of more than 5 data points, so get your story straight. It’s also not true you can’t draw conclusions out of a small number of data points. More is better, obviously. Emissions not accelerating is of course important because 1) it was what the conversation was literally about and 2) it’s a necessary prerequisite for them going down. Plus, as I showed, emissions are going down, not just not accelerating, in developed nations. Emissions going down is the right track, emissions going up or accelerating is the wrong track. What is it you want to see? Zero emissions? Obviously that’s going to take a while, it won’t happen overnight. And before it does, they have to start going down. And zero emissions isn’t even enough, we have to go negative by capturing carbon. Unless we think 1.1C over pre industrial is acceptable. Which obviously we don’t because people are talking about current effects of warming. So no, not all of the evidence shows that we are not “on the right track”. It’s true only if you ignore the evidence that contradicts your worldview.

by jshen 3y ago

wilg 3y ago

I don't know how to explain to you that that graph shows emissions flattening in the last 5 or so years. I guess you just don't want to see it. I never claimed GHG wasn't continuing to increase, though maybe that's what you thought I meant. I meant to discuss the original commenter's opinion that global warming was accelerating. It's not accelerating. It's slowing. Emissions are still increasing, yes, because we don't have a deficit. But increasing isn't the same thing as accelerating. You can also see this in how the actual temperature of the earth (the only metric that matters) has not increased in the past few years. https://climate.nasa.gov/ https://climate.nasa.gov/ (click on "global temperature") Another important metric is that per-capita GHG emissions are declining across the developed world. This indicates we are increasing the efficiency of our society significantly. This is trade-adjusted, so it accounts for emissions embedded in imported goods. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...

jshen 3y ago
I don't know how to tell you that you can't jump to conclusions from 3 data points. I guess you don't understand that. "I meant to discuss the original commenter's opinion that global warming was accelerating. It's not accelerating. It's slowing." I don't think you can conclude this at this time, but even if you want to believe it, it's still increasing (GHGs in the atmosphere and temperatures), and that's very bad news. "You can also see this in how the actual temperature of the earth (the only metric that matters) has not increased in the past few years" Again, you can't draw conclusions from 3 data points. Not sure if you are arguing in bad faith here, or simply don't understand. Look back at either the temperature graph or the emissions graph and you can find several 3 year periods where it didn't increase, then it shot right back up again. In the case of the last few years of temperatures, that's due to the La Nina (link below) which lowers temperatures, when we switch back to the El Nino it's going to shoot up again, and likely start breaking records again. We are not on the right track, and all of the evidence shows this. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64192508 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64192508
- wilg 3y ago
  Firstly, you keep lowering the number of data points you’re complaining about. First it was 5, and now 3. Also, I discussed trends of more than 5 data points, so get your story straight. It’s also not true you can’t draw conclusions out of a small number of data points. More is better, obviously. Emissions not accelerating is of course important because 1) it was what the conversation was literally about and 2) it’s a necessary prerequisite for them going down. Plus, as I showed, emissions are going down, not just not accelerating, in developed nations. Emissions going down is the right track, emissions going up or accelerating is the wrong track. What is it you want to see? Zero emissions? Obviously that’s going to take a while, it won’t happen overnight. And before it does, they have to start going down. And zero emissions isn’t even enough, we have to go negative by capturing carbon. Unless we think 1.1C over pre industrial is acceptable. Which obviously we don’t because people are talking about current effects of warming. So no, not all of the evidence shows that we are not “on the right track”. It’s true only if you ignore the evidence that contradicts your worldview.