6 ms·

I may be out of depth here, but does anyone else also thinks that measuring "emissions" is a kind of bullshit? First it is not very precise in the first place,

by Yizahi 3y ago

I may be out of depth here, but does anyone else also thinks that measuring "emissions" is a kind of bullshit? First it is not very precise in the first place, but let's assume it is. Second - the effects of the GH gasses in atmosphere is not linear, scientists hypothesize about different thresholds which can be reached at certain global temperature points. Like for example west Antarctic shield detaching, Gulfstream interruption, sedimentary ocean methane release, permafrost methane release etc. All these can rapidly change our climate while "emissions" would be steady or even receding. Third - even "level" emissions would still continue heating up the planet, and heating rate would increase even with the "level" state of emissions, simply because "old" already emitted gasses are still in the atmosphere. I think it is more fair to measure temperatures directly, as we already do, and make estimates from there. It's not the CO2 which would harm us (at least not that much), it's the temperature, so we need to base our analysis on the thing that interests us directly. And not on the derivative of the derivative of it (emission rates). I suspect it doesn't matter how good are our models or how good are humanity's efforts in green tech. Until we are actually removing gasses from the atmosphere permanently, the planet is fucked. Just faster or slower, doesn't really matter.

Yizahi 3y ago
Oh, and while we are it, I have problem with correlating author's graphs of emissions with this graph of actual gas in the atmosphere: https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ You don't even need to be a big wig scientist to test this assumption. Open the graph on the big monitor and put a ruler or anything straight like a piece of paper to the median points corresponding to years 2000-2010. If emissions were "level" in the last decade then we should have 2010-2022 datapoints at most at the same line or even below the line. But in reality we see that the curve is raising up faster, meaning that the rate of emissions increased between years 10-22 compared to years 00-10, which contradicts author's graphs.
- vages 3y ago
  It's very hard to argue without numerical data, but the graph on the Wikipedia version of the graph seems to increase linearly to my eyes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve (Edit: No, I can see what you mean; the graph is steeper from 2010–2020 than from 2000–2010.) (To anyone a bit confused, the Keeling graph is the cumulative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so emissions are the first derivative of this graph.)
  - roter 3y ago
    > ... so emissions are the first derivative of this graph Not exactly. There is a net sink of emissions every year into the land & ocean, so d(CO2)/dt = emissions minus the net sinks, roughly. See the graph on CO2 partitioning [0]. A lot of research goes into whether these sinks continue at their current rate of removal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle#Anthropogenic_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle#Anthr...
- penteract 3y ago
  It looks to me like the graphs agree - emissions were growing 2000-2010, so the average emissions during that period (which roughly correspond to the gradient you're measuring with a straight edge) are lower than those from 2010 onwards, even if yearly emissions stayed constant after 2010.
  - ImaCake 3y ago
    Yes, to put it simply, the rate of emissions stopped increasing but we are still emitting what we were in 2010 (plus a bit) so the keeling curve goes straight instead of continuing to subtly bend upwards.
- Gravityloss 3y ago
  If you take the emissions from 2000 to 2010, the total is less than from 2010 to 2020. [1] Hence the keeling curve of concentration should be steeper in 2010 to 2020. [2] That indeed is the case. 1: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffca2a55f-f9a3-4959-958d-f8ec96c077e9_1852x1042.jpeg https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... 2: https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
  - Yizahi 3y ago
    Maybe I'm making some math mistake here, please correct me then. But I though that if a rate of addition is constant (horizontal graph), then the graph representing the sum total should be rising but linear. If the rate is negative, then the total graph would curve down. If the rate of addition is positive, then the total graph would curve up. And it's the last scenario which we see on the Keeling curve. Graph is curving up in the past decade, therefore rate of addition is increasing. No?
    - penteract 3y ago
      You're right except for the timescale of the claim that the graph is curving up in the past decade. Your observations show the graph curving upwards over the past 2 decades, during which we all agree that CO2 emissions were rising.
    - Gravityloss 3y ago
      You're correct in general but you need to be more specific with the years if you think there's a discrepancy. One would assume that there's some time delay from mixing and some other sources of change. But I think there shouldn't be any if smoothed? Easiest visually would be to integrate the emissions and compare it to the keeling curve, or differentiate the keeling curve and compare it to the emissions.
jasmer 3y ago
This is some really bizarre logic: "It's not the guy with then gun, it's the bullets, let's avoid them!" I think the secondary things you describe are almost large scale weather events, not quite climate. But most fundamentally, the 'primary driver' of temperature change is CO2 and that's that so of course we have to measure it. And yes, it's far more fuzzy than they let on, which is not good they should be more open about that, or find a way to communicate it more effectively. No, the planet is not all 'fucked' and CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air, and of course, if we want to start to decarbonize the atmosphere we can do that as well. I wish they would use the term 'climate risk' - because risk all about less likely probabilities, than 'specific paths to the future'.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  > CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. I'm not against measuring emission rates, that's an important metric. I'm against making any far reaching assumptions based ONLY on the emission rates estimates. Because that's like cooking meat inside an opaque black box by measuring torque forces applied to the regulator over time. It loosely corresponds to the result, but the meat would be charred most likely, due to big amount of conversions and estimations. On the other hand measuring meat temperature with a thermometer inserted directly into it would give us a precision result.
  - darkwater 3y ago
    > What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. Considering that nature provides carbon traps and that the Earth is ultimately in the void of the space, you cooking meat is a kitchen with opened windows and freezing weather outside, and you turn down the climate that was set to full throttle.
  - 3y ago
pavlov 3y ago
> “Until we are actually removing gasses from the atmosphere permanently, the planet is fucked. Just faster or slower, doesn't really matter.” If I have a cancer, and a lifestyle change would make the difference between whether the cancer kills me in four years or forty… I definitely wouldn’t say “I’m fucked anyway, no point in doing anything unless the cancer can be permanently removed.”
- bartislartfast 3y ago
  Plenty people take exactly that view, when it comes to cancer. The problem is, this is not cancer, and all the people who take the "fucked anyway" view are damning the rest of us
- vages 3y ago
  Living for forty additional years from 1983 (40 years ago) would have made a world of difference to your chances of survival for any type of cancer.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  This is a very good metaphor. That's exactly what we are doing - we have a cancer and we are making a lifestyle changes, hoping that cancer will reconsider :) . The gas already in the atmosphere, just like cancer cells, doesn't care about good intentions, positive thinking and a number of "net zero" logos slapped on the heavily polluting hardware. It's doing it's work all the time, regardless of the emission rates were have on the ground, be they real or faked. Sure, it's great that we are changing our society globally, it is beneficial for us. If we will ever decide to cool the planet then green energy is must have tech for that, because we can't sequester gas while emitting more of it, it's dumb. But we are talking about a long term estimate now, and that one unfortunately in my uneducated opinion didn't change much. The heating rate didn't change much because of a few Leafs and Teslas on the road, and some northern EU countries actually reducing emissions.
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    Unless we: 1: Discover some previously unknown method to directly recreate cheap and easy unlimited photosynthesis either electrically or mechanically or 2: Somehow create a fan system that can atomically slice the carbon atoms off of gaseous co2 particles And the one that we create is ALSO cheap enough to deploy world wide en masse capable of equal or greater CO2 concentration reduction than the number of CO2 producing ICE engines in use and industries put out, it's not going to ever be a miracle fix. or 3: Hijack a currently existing biological system to do the heavy lifting for us: I imagine that with government incentive something like a self-regulating robotic rooftop duckweed farms being required for every vehicle owning household, but something like that would first need to be perfected and made available at an affordable price, like $400 or less with minimal maintenance expense which is a HUGE ask considering that duckweed propagation is not a solved part of agricultural science. I chose Duckweed because it is the fastest growing plant in the world, which can double in mass almost daily under ideal conditions, uses photosynthesis to convert water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbohydrates, fats, and proteins, and its dietary requirements are met easily, only needing a small amount of additives to common water and a ready source of carbon dioxide as could be handled by bubbling atmospheric air into the water. Additionally, duckweed is edible by humans and animals, and if there were unconsumable excess as would be likely given 3 billion home duckweed farms, we could theoretically dry and burn it for carbon negative fuel (as the leftover carbon ash from the burn would count as sequestered carbon). Alternatively, some genetically modified cyanobacteria could probably do the trick, but with risk of harm should it escape from its confines into the ecosphere.
scythe 3y ago
>sedimentary ocean methane release http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis >While it may be important on the millennial timescales, it is no longer considered relevant for the near future climate change: the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report states "It is very unlikely that gas clathrates (mostly methane) in deeper terrestrial permafrost and subsea clathrates will lead to a detectable departure from the emissions trajectory during this century".
argiopetech 3y ago
> the planet is fucked The planet will be fine. It will be different, but that's a normal thing in its 4 billion year history. Whether it will be habitable for humans is a different question. I suspect we'll adapt (like we did for the last ice age), but I'm no expert. On the bright side, more heat and CO2 means more arable land and better growing environment. Veggies and grazing animals are all I need to get by, food wise.
- AlphaCerium 3y ago
  More heat and CO2 means a higher sea level, which will lead to the loss of arable land, not gain
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    I've been unable to find a source either way. Can you help? Just looking casually at topo maps and assuming the worst case I've seen (all land and sea ice melts, resulting in sea water rising 250'), the land we'll lose in coastal regions and major river basins is smaller than what we'll gain near the poles. Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over. Edit: This isn't to say that worst case scenario wouldn't displace high percentages of the population or that that isn't a major issue; however, it's not an insurmountable obstacle given the gradual nature of the change.
    - HNDen21 3y ago
      Antarica is problematic since it is completely dark 4 months out of the year... and completely sunny the opposite 4 months.. and even then isn't it just rocks underneath that ice.. you would need to bring in soil etc.. but if all the ice melts will that even be above water at that point?
    - mikestew 3y ago
      Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over. I'd bet a paycheck that there's no top soil worthy of the name under all that ice. Same with when people yuk it up with, "we'll just farm Canada!" Have you seen the dirt in British Columbia? I don't think that soil could grow anything other than more dirt. (Though Manitoba and Saskatchewan would probably do better, dunno.)
Lutger 3y ago
From just tracking temperature it may not be clear we are seeing climate change or weather variations. There are also cycles in the climate, like El Niño, which cause temporary increases in temperature. So I do think tracking emissions, or rather actual level of CO2-equivalents, is a much more reliable indicator of 'how we are doing' on the longer term. The CO2e levels are (a) cause of temperature, so it is the latter which is derivative of the former. But mostly, emissions are what we are directly responsible for and can influence, temperature increase is just the result of that and we have no direct control over. Obviously we measure and study both and they both matter so the point is somewhat moot.
wizofaus 3y ago
Except we can't directly/ immediately alter the global temperature, whereas we can alter emissions rates. If we bring them down to net zero quickly the planet will be warmer than it was 100 years ago but still at a temperature that's safe enough for humans to thrive in (though maybe not many other species, particularly corals etc.). And yes, we'll probably need to resort to some form of geo-engineering to further reduce CO2 levels and/or temperatures, but for now measuring emissions is the best way we have of monitoring to what degree we're doing enough to stave off a catastrophic future.
feoren 3y ago
Emissions are something we have (relatively) direct control over. Realize that these models do take into account cascading effects like triggering ocean methane releases. They do take into account nonlinear effects of different GHGs. They pick possible emissions scenarios, simulate as many of these effects as they can, and look at the spectrum of possible future results. Then we look at our emissions to try to guess which simulation results our future is most likely to resemble. It's not quite as tunnel-visioned as you make it out to be. > Until we are actually removing gasses from the atmosphere permanently, the planet is fucked. I happen to agree with this, but realize that's exactly the same metric: it's just negative GHG emissions. We would do the same thing: simulate potential future outcomes given an emission / capture balance that is overall negative, estimate what might happen, and then measure what we're actually doing to see whether we might actually be on that path or not. Once we start removing gasses, it's still useful to track overall emission balance.

by Yizahi 3y ago

Yizahi 3y ago

Oh, and while we are it, I have problem with correlating author's graphs of emissions with this graph of actual gas in the atmosphere: https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ You don't even need to be a big wig scientist to test this assumption. Open the graph on the big monitor and put a ruler or anything straight like a piece of paper to the median points corresponding to years 2000-2010. If emissions were "level" in the last decade then we should have 2010-2022 datapoints at most at the same line or even below the line. But in reality we see that the curve is raising up faster, meaning that the rate of emissions increased between years 10-22 compared to years 00-10, which contradicts author's graphs.

vages 3y ago
It's very hard to argue without numerical data, but the graph on the Wikipedia version of the graph seems to increase linearly to my eyes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve (Edit: No, I can see what you mean; the graph is steeper from 2010–2020 than from 2000–2010.) (To anyone a bit confused, the Keeling graph is the cumulative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so emissions are the first derivative of this graph.)
- roter 3y ago
  > ... so emissions are the first derivative of this graph Not exactly. There is a net sink of emissions every year into the land & ocean, so d(CO2)/dt = emissions minus the net sinks, roughly. See the graph on CO2 partitioning [0]. A lot of research goes into whether these sinks continue at their current rate of removal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle#Anthropogenic_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle#Anthr...
penteract 3y ago
It looks to me like the graphs agree - emissions were growing 2000-2010, so the average emissions during that period (which roughly correspond to the gradient you're measuring with a straight edge) are lower than those from 2010 onwards, even if yearly emissions stayed constant after 2010.
- ImaCake 3y ago
  Yes, to put it simply, the rate of emissions stopped increasing but we are still emitting what we were in 2010 (plus a bit) so the keeling curve goes straight instead of continuing to subtly bend upwards.
Gravityloss 3y ago
If you take the emissions from 2000 to 2010, the total is less than from 2010 to 2020. [1] Hence the keeling curve of concentration should be steeper in 2010 to 2020. [2] That indeed is the case. 1: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffca2a55f-f9a3-4959-958d-f8ec96c077e9_1852x1042.jpeg https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... 2: https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
- Yizahi 3y ago
  Maybe I'm making some math mistake here, please correct me then. But I though that if a rate of addition is constant (horizontal graph), then the graph representing the sum total should be rising but linear. If the rate is negative, then the total graph would curve down. If the rate of addition is positive, then the total graph would curve up. And it's the last scenario which we see on the Keeling curve. Graph is curving up in the past decade, therefore rate of addition is increasing. No?
  - penteract 3y ago
    You're right except for the timescale of the claim that the graph is curving up in the past decade. Your observations show the graph curving upwards over the past 2 decades, during which we all agree that CO2 emissions were rising.
  - Gravityloss 3y ago
    You're correct in general but you need to be more specific with the years if you think there's a discrepancy. One would assume that there's some time delay from mixing and some other sources of change. But I think there shouldn't be any if smoothed? Easiest visually would be to integrate the emissions and compare it to the keeling curve, or differentiate the keeling curve and compare it to the emissions.

jasmer 3y ago

This is some really bizarre logic: "It's not the guy with then gun, it's the bullets, let's avoid them!" I think the secondary things you describe are almost large scale weather events, not quite climate. But most fundamentally, the 'primary driver' of temperature change is CO2 and that's that so of course we have to measure it. And yes, it's far more fuzzy than they let on, which is not good they should be more open about that, or find a way to communicate it more effectively. No, the planet is not all 'fucked' and CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air, and of course, if we want to start to decarbonize the atmosphere we can do that as well. I wish they would use the term 'climate risk' - because risk all about less likely probabilities, than 'specific paths to the future'.

Yizahi 3y ago
> CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. I'm not against measuring emission rates, that's an important metric. I'm against making any far reaching assumptions based ONLY on the emission rates estimates. Because that's like cooking meat inside an opaque black box by measuring torque forces applied to the regulator over time. It loosely corresponds to the result, but the meat would be charred most likely, due to big amount of conversions and estimations. On the other hand measuring meat temperature with a thermometer inserted directly into it would give us a precision result.
- darkwater 3y ago
  > What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally. Considering that nature provides carbon traps and that the Earth is ultimately in the void of the space, you cooking meat is a kitchen with opened windows and freezing weather outside, and you turn down the climate that was set to full throttle.
- 3y ago

pavlov 3y ago

> “Until we are actually removing gasses from the atmosphere permanently, the planet is fucked. Just faster or slower, doesn't really matter.” If I have a cancer, and a lifestyle change would make the difference between whether the cancer kills me in four years or forty… I definitely wouldn’t say “I’m fucked anyway, no point in doing anything unless the cancer can be permanently removed.”

bartislartfast 3y ago
Plenty people take exactly that view, when it comes to cancer. The problem is, this is not cancer, and all the people who take the "fucked anyway" view are damning the rest of us
vages 3y ago
Living for forty additional years from 1983 (40 years ago) would have made a world of difference to your chances of survival for any type of cancer.
Yizahi 3y ago
This is a very good metaphor. That's exactly what we are doing - we have a cancer and we are making a lifestyle changes, hoping that cancer will reconsider :) . The gas already in the atmosphere, just like cancer cells, doesn't care about good intentions, positive thinking and a number of "net zero" logos slapped on the heavily polluting hardware. It's doing it's work all the time, regardless of the emission rates were have on the ground, be they real or faked. Sure, it's great that we are changing our society globally, it is beneficial for us. If we will ever decide to cool the planet then green energy is must have tech for that, because we can't sequester gas while emitting more of it, it's dumb. But we are talking about a long term estimate now, and that one unfortunately in my uneducated opinion didn't change much. The heating rate didn't change much because of a few Leafs and Teslas on the road, and some northern EU countries actually reducing emissions.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Unless we: 1: Discover some previously unknown method to directly recreate cheap and easy unlimited photosynthesis either electrically or mechanically or 2: Somehow create a fan system that can atomically slice the carbon atoms off of gaseous co2 particles And the one that we create is ALSO cheap enough to deploy world wide en masse capable of equal or greater CO2 concentration reduction than the number of CO2 producing ICE engines in use and industries put out, it's not going to ever be a miracle fix. or 3: Hijack a currently existing biological system to do the heavy lifting for us: I imagine that with government incentive something like a self-regulating robotic rooftop duckweed farms being required for every vehicle owning household, but something like that would first need to be perfected and made available at an affordable price, like $400 or less with minimal maintenance expense which is a HUGE ask considering that duckweed propagation is not a solved part of agricultural science. I chose Duckweed because it is the fastest growing plant in the world, which can double in mass almost daily under ideal conditions, uses photosynthesis to convert water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbohydrates, fats, and proteins, and its dietary requirements are met easily, only needing a small amount of additives to common water and a ready source of carbon dioxide as could be handled by bubbling atmospheric air into the water. Additionally, duckweed is edible by humans and animals, and if there were unconsumable excess as would be likely given 3 billion home duckweed farms, we could theoretically dry and burn it for carbon negative fuel (as the leftover carbon ash from the burn would count as sequestered carbon). Alternatively, some genetically modified cyanobacteria could probably do the trick, but with risk of harm should it escape from its confines into the ecosphere.

scythe 3y ago

>sedimentary ocean methane release http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis >While it may be important on the millennial timescales, it is no longer considered relevant for the near future climate change: the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report states "It is very unlikely that gas clathrates (mostly methane) in deeper terrestrial permafrost and subsea clathrates will lead to a detectable departure from the emissions trajectory during this century".

argiopetech 3y ago

> the planet is fucked The planet will be fine. It will be different, but that's a normal thing in its 4 billion year history. Whether it will be habitable for humans is a different question. I suspect we'll adapt (like we did for the last ice age), but I'm no expert. On the bright side, more heat and CO2 means more arable land and better growing environment. Veggies and grazing animals are all I need to get by, food wise.

AlphaCerium 3y ago
More heat and CO2 means a higher sea level, which will lead to the loss of arable land, not gain
- argiopetech 3y ago
  I've been unable to find a source either way. Can you help? Just looking casually at topo maps and assuming the worst case I've seen (all land and sea ice melts, resulting in sea water rising 250'), the land we'll lose in coastal regions and major river basins is smaller than what we'll gain near the poles. Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over. Edit: This isn't to say that worst case scenario wouldn't displace high percentages of the population or that that isn't a major issue; however, it's not an insurmountable obstacle given the gradual nature of the change.
  - HNDen21 3y ago
    Antarica is problematic since it is completely dark 4 months out of the year... and completely sunny the opposite 4 months.. and even then isn't it just rocks underneath that ice.. you would need to bring in soil etc.. but if all the ice melts will that even be above water at that point?
  - mikestew 3y ago
    Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over. I'd bet a paycheck that there's no top soil worthy of the name under all that ice. Same with when people yuk it up with, "we'll just farm Canada!" Have you seen the dirt in British Columbia? I don't think that soil could grow anything other than more dirt. (Though Manitoba and Saskatchewan would probably do better, dunno.)

Lutger 3y ago

From just tracking temperature it may not be clear we are seeing climate change or weather variations. There are also cycles in the climate, like El Niño, which cause temporary increases in temperature. So I do think tracking emissions, or rather actual level of CO2-equivalents, is a much more reliable indicator of 'how we are doing' on the longer term. The CO2e levels are (a) cause of temperature, so it is the latter which is derivative of the former. But mostly, emissions are what we are directly responsible for and can influence, temperature increase is just the result of that and we have no direct control over. Obviously we measure and study both and they both matter so the point is somewhat moot.

wizofaus 3y ago

Except we can't directly/ immediately alter the global temperature, whereas we can alter emissions rates. If we bring them down to net zero quickly the planet will be warmer than it was 100 years ago but still at a temperature that's safe enough for humans to thrive in (though maybe not many other species, particularly corals etc.). And yes, we'll probably need to resort to some form of geo-engineering to further reduce CO2 levels and/or temperatures, but for now measuring emissions is the best way we have of monitoring to what degree we're doing enough to stave off a catastrophic future.

feoren 3y ago

Emissions are something we have (relatively) direct control over. Realize that these models do take into account cascading effects like triggering ocean methane releases. They do take into account nonlinear effects of different GHGs. They pick possible emissions scenarios, simulate as many of these effects as they can, and look at the spectrum of possible future results. Then we look at our emissions to try to guess which simulation results our future is most likely to resemble. It's not quite as tunnel-visioned as you make it out to be. > Until we are actually removing gasses from the atmosphere permanently, the planet is fucked. I happen to agree with this, but realize that's exactly the same metric: it's just negative GHG emissions. We would do the same thing: simulate potential future outcomes given an emission / capture balance that is overall negative, estimate what might happen, and then measure what we're actually doing to see whether we might actually be on that path or not. Once we start removing gasses, it's still useful to track overall emission balance.