4 ms·
This is good news, but I hope this was a real change and not “solved” by “creative accounting” (e.g. stopping counting some emissions as emissions). I will ha
by otikik 3y ago
This is good news, but I hope this was a real change and not “solved” by “creative accounting” (e.g. stopping counting some emissions as emissions). I will have to look at the reference data for this.
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoFrom skimming the article, it seems to be due to decreased coal burning and increased renewables. So good news indeed! However, the trajectory of progress at the moment is just stagnating emissions, not decreasing so a lot of work remains to be done.
- ImaCake 3y agoHard to argue with robust monitoring of CO2 concentrations which are now increasing linearly rather than exponentially (i.e emissions are constant instead of increasing).
- revelio 3y agoThey have never been increasing exponentially: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
- ImaCake 3y agoI am not sure... with caveats about timeseries ofc, plotting the yearly mean with a linear fit shows a curve where values in 1960 and 2010s are above the line and the between years are below. This would fit with a non constant slope that is slowly increasing in steepness. The size of the increase each year is much higher now than in 1980s even accounting for the increased CO2 value. So the rate of change has increased.