> an increase of 2.9 ppm since May 2023 and the fifth-largest annual growth in 50 years of data recording.
So then it's not faster than ever? Just somewhat fast compared with recent climate data. The author seems to have no capacity to distinguish between a measurement and a change in measurement. The article postulates it's because of "continued burning of fossil fuels" but that wouldn't contribute to a higher rate of change unless the amount of fossil fuels being burned is higher. I'm curious if there's some post-covid economic effect leading to this, but from what I've read it seems to be just because we're in an El Niño phase?
It has major implications for atmospheric composition[1]. Climates are a massively dynamic system, and they work in really unintuitive and complicated ways. It's a pretty big misconception that we're capable of performing deductive reasoning about them. Even our stochastic workarounds aren't capable of dealing with them very well (see: the commonly joked about unreliability of predictive meteorology), which is why I generally take a very hard skeptical stance whenever I see this kind of conclusive language, outside of purely descriptive measures and careful talk about correlations. The climate is undergoing change that hasn't been seen since about 10k years ago, and that's about all we can say conclusively.
5 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 23.3 ms ] threadSo then it's not faster than ever? Just somewhat fast compared with recent climate data. The author seems to have no capacity to distinguish between a measurement and a change in measurement. The article postulates it's because of "continued burning of fossil fuels" but that wouldn't contribute to a higher rate of change unless the amount of fossil fuels being burned is higher. I'm curious if there's some post-covid economic effect leading to this, but from what I've read it seems to be just because we're in an El Niño phase?
[1] - https://research.noaa.gov/2019/06/05/surprisingly-large-carb...