[danieltillett]

No. Data that comes out of a political process where people can claim that they are reducing CO2 emission is a lot more suspect than data that comes from actually measuring the CO2 level in the air. This is how we can end up with such contradictory data - on one side there is a vested interest that says emissions are going down, while the measurement of the actual CO2 emission rate is going up.

[ori_b]

The reason that the data is 'contradictory' is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the integral of the emissions over time (minus the amount that gets sequestered by greenery and the like).

Even if the emissions level off fully, the expected amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will grow linearly. Emissions need to decrease to less than the rate of sequestration for the total CO2 in the atmosphere to shrink.

There's no contradiction: atmospheric_CO2 = integrate_{0,today}(emissions - sequestration)dt.

[danieltillett]

Yes the level is an integral, but the growth rate is a derivative. The growth rate measured in the atmosphere does not match the negative growth rate the political process is claiming.

Ultimately what matters is the absolute level of GHG and there is no sign this is going down anytime in the foreseeable future unless we make some major and very drastic changes.

[ori_b]

> The growth rate measured in the atmosphere does not match the negative growth rate the political process is claiming.

The political process is claiming a negative growth rate in emissions (ie, the second derivative of the atmospheric levels, or the first derivative of the change in the atmospheric levels).

In other words, the growth of the growth in atmospheric CO2 levels is decreasing.

[danieltillett]

Yes, but the second derivative of the atmospheric levels is not negative :(