3 ms·
There's a graph here of both levels and the derivatives. https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/keeling.jpg https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/keeling.jpg Gro
by revelio 4y ago
There's a graph here of both levels and the derivatives.
https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/keeling.jpg https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/keeling.jpg
Growth rate is very stable. You could almost put a ruler against the absolute line. As you say, people cannot really "notice tiny differences" on that scale.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoYes, I believe that both you and the graph agree with me. The 1st derivative line of the CO2 levels is very noisy (as derivatives almost always are), but it seems to me that it shows a steady increase until it hit a peak in 2015 and now is decreasing. Hard enough to see in the derivative graph and completely impossible to see in the absolute CO2 level graph. So 2nd derivative of CO2 is now finally pointing in the right direction. And the absolute CO2 level is approximately the first derivative of the temperature. So in other words we've only turned the 3rd derivative of temperature in the right direction. If it stays negative, over time that will eventually turn the 2nd and 1st derivatives. It's time we don't have if our goal is 1.5 degrees, but it's enough time to avoid 6 degrees. Where in the middle will we land?