4 ms·
That's the problem I was talking about. We humans can't measure emissions, we can only cleverly estimate them. Especially if the number we want is a global one,
by Yizahi 2y ago
That's the problem I was talking about. We humans can't measure emissions, we can only cleverly estimate them. Especially if the number we want is a global one, a sum of every tiny source plus every big source in every country, from democracies to a closed dictatorships. So when institutions show that badly estimated rate of gas inflow is decreasing, but the actual amount of gas is increasing, then the only logical answer is that inflow measurement is broken. Emissions estimates are broken, because total amount of gas in the atmosphere is only ever increasing and the rate of increase is accelerating.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoMauna Koa direct measurements and the estimates are not significantly different.
- Yizahi 2y agoWell, yes, they both show almost no impact from our green initiatives on the actual data. Emissions graph is increasing, and very slightly slowing rate of increase in the past few years. But the CO2 graph is a direct measurement of total CO2, so it is effectively a cumulative graph. And it is lowly curving up, accelerating, over past decades including last few years. Even if we magically flat line emissions graph, meaning no more increases of emissions, we will still see CO2 graph increasing and likely accelerating due to compounding of factors and existing CO2 levels already in the atmosphere. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/