3 ms·
If the trend is so tiny it's invisible to the naked eye, that's another way of saying that human activity is having no perceptible impact on CO2 levels, which i
by nvm0n2 3y ago
If the trend is so tiny it's invisible to the naked eye, that's another way of saying that human activity is having no perceptible impact on CO2 levels, which isn't meant to be the case is it.
BTW your paper is a bit of an odd citation, could you explain further? It itself states that its own conclusions are "unintuitive" and that they need a complex model in which there are vast non-linear sinks absorbing human emissions, as otherwise they face problems explaining the data. Also, that "measured atmospheric CO2 concentration values continue a steady decline as one moves backward in time from about 1925 to 1750". So CO2 concentrations were steadily rising during this time that climatologists usually call "pre industrial", where was it coming from?
- palata 3y ago> If the trend is so tiny it's invisible to the naked eye You cannot say "we emit more CO2 every year, though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases linearly, that's weird", and then when someone tells you it's not increasing linearly, say "oh but when I quickly look at that one graph there, to me it looks like a line, so that proves that it is a line".