3 ms·
I said levels. You're not looking at data on levels (measured empirically using simple physics), but emissions, which is a smorgasbord of combined government da
by mike_hearn 2y ago
I said levels. You're not looking at data on levels (measured empirically using simple physics), but emissions, which is a smorgasbord of combined government data sources that aren't very likely to be complete.
If you check levels, you'll see no impact. Therefore we must conclude that either:
1. Emissions do not affect measured levels (carbon cycles are complex so this is possible).
2. Emissions data is wrong.
3. The tiny reduction in emissions was just too small to actually show up in measurements.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThe noise levels on direct measurements are pretty high. You're right that it's not big enough to show up on a year to year basis, but it will likely make a difference up on a longer term analysis, which can see more impact and has less variance. In that case it depends on whether "observable" is supposed to include near-future measurements or not.