• rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    and it too has been accelerating so it doesn’t change the point its just there are some prior emission impacts

    Say you don’t understand emissions measuring without actually saying you don’t understand emissions measuring.

    Past emissions only place emissions up to a value. Current emissions are what determine whether our emissions output is continuing to accelerate, or are actually slowing down.

    And yesterday’s emissions continue to be smaller than today’s emissions. That is why it’s called accelerating emissions.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      And yesterday’s emissions continue to be smaller than today’s emissions. That is why it’s called accelerating emissions.

      Not necessarily true. According to the article, it’s quite possible that yesterday’s emissions are the same as today’s emissions. Meaning, we’ve stopped increasing emissions.

      • rekabis@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Until that graph curves over, it isn’t true.

        Evidence trumps wishes and fantasies. I refuse to get ensnared by hopium.

          • rekabis@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            And predictions mean absolutely nothing until the evidence is in.

            Problem is, people frequently celebrate predictions, and build policy with those predictions. That’s called jumping the gun.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Keep your panties on, no one is making policy based on this report. At most, people are viewing it with cautious optimism.