2 ms·
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
by 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 agoMaybe 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 agoYou'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 agoYou'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.