Why is there almost no difference in CO2 levels during covid when most of the world was locked down, manufacturing was greatly decreased and travel was restricted?
Why is there almost no difference in CO2 levels during covid when most of the world was locked down, manufacturing was greatly decreased and travel was restricted?
Because those things only affect emissions, not actual atmospheric CO2 levels. And even annual emissions didn't decline that much during COVID. Most of the world's workers still had to come into...
Because those things only affect emissions, not actual atmospheric CO2 levels. And even annual emissions didn't decline that much during COVID. Most of the world's workers still had to come into work, and people who did work from home increased their home emissions a bit since they were home more of the day. And the biggest emissions sources weren't necessarily affected much.
Honestly, the meager emissions decline during COVID are one of the most pessimistic bits of info we've seen in recent years. If all that societal disruption barely made a dent in annual emissions, what would actually making a difference take? It seems we are simply incapable of doing what is necessary to make meaningful progress on this kind of issue, even when our direct survival is threatened.
In the very long term, humanity will survive, adapt, and recover. But where we seem all but certain to be headed? We will be extremely lucky if the human population remains over 1 billion by the end of the century. Right now, we're well past the point of preventing major damage. In historical terms, we've already locked in "WW2 casualty levels." Hopefully, if we really get our act together, we can end up with casualties that look more like WW2 levels, rather than "global thermonuclear war" casualty figures.
The flipside of all that which might help is that the societal disruption was incredibly selfishly minded. Sure, protect the elderly and immunocompromised, but keep businesses running! deliver...
If all that societal disruption barely made a dent in annual emissions, what would actually making a difference take?
The flipside of all that which might help is that the societal disruption was incredibly selfishly minded. Sure, protect the elderly and immunocompromised, but keep businesses running! deliver groceries! We curtailed pretty much all the good parts of our society, but kept the machines running so they'd be started when we got over the flu. Any intent to shape our lives into a more sustainable shape would probably be at least a better value for our pain, and I can't imagine it'll be as bad as a quarter of the globe retiring to doomscrolling for two years while the rest worked hard to keep things the same.
Not a scientist so take this with a grain of salt, but I assume all the biggest polluters were still polluting. Cows didn't disappear, homes didn't stop needing heat, etc. I have also read that...
Not a scientist so take this with a grain of salt, but I assume all the biggest polluters were still polluting. Cows didn't disappear, homes didn't stop needing heat, etc.
I have also read that Co2 levels don't turn on or off like a switch. It's like shaking up a massive snow globe where instead of glittery snow it's Co2, and instead of settling in 30 seconds it settles in many years.
I think this take makes sense. I'm not a climate scientist myself, but it's not like the CO2 in the atmosphere just vanishes overnight - in fact that's the whole problem. The only way it is being...
I think this take makes sense. I'm not a climate scientist myself, but it's not like the CO2 in the atmosphere just vanishes overnight - in fact that's the whole problem. The only way it is being removed from the atmosphere is by it being stripped by solar winds, being sequestered by plants through photosynthesis, or dissolving into bodies of water. These don't happen quickly, especially the sequestering of carbon by life.
And one important thing to note - this isn't the rate of CO2 production, which probably would look different (although higher than preindustrial levels). These are absolute levels of carbon dioxide.
Quick edit: I forgot that we can also remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in minerals or other substances, but as far as I'm aware that is not actually carbon neutral.
Relevant XKCD. I wish the graph had started at 0 rather than 260. It would have still been pretty scary. If you haven't already, click the button to see the last 800,000 years. That spike at the...
It appears that Newtonian physics or possibly calculus caused the rise in CO2 levels based on xkcd's graph. The 800,000-year view on the site OP posted (top left button on mobile) reveals some...
It appears that Newtonian physics or possibly calculus caused the rise in CO2 levels based on xkcd's graph.
The 800,000-year view on the site OP posted (top left button on mobile) reveals some interesting things. Even the other "vertical" lines on that page took over 2000 years for the CO2 level to increase less than it did over the last 200 years.
The 800,000 years ago graph is worth looking at, yeah there's natural fluctuation in CO2, but it takes about 50,000 years for a cycle that varies between 200 and 300pp. Meanwhile we've increased...
The 800,000 years ago graph is worth looking at, yeah there's natural fluctuation in CO2, but it takes about 50,000 years for a cycle that varies between 200 and 300pp. Meanwhile we've increased CO2 from 300 to 400ppm in a single centaury.
Why is there almost no difference in CO2 levels during covid when most of the world was locked down, manufacturing was greatly decreased and travel was restricted?
Because those things only affect emissions, not actual atmospheric CO2 levels. And even annual emissions didn't decline that much during COVID. Most of the world's workers still had to come into work, and people who did work from home increased their home emissions a bit since they were home more of the day. And the biggest emissions sources weren't necessarily affected much.
Honestly, the meager emissions decline during COVID are one of the most pessimistic bits of info we've seen in recent years. If all that societal disruption barely made a dent in annual emissions, what would actually making a difference take? It seems we are simply incapable of doing what is necessary to make meaningful progress on this kind of issue, even when our direct survival is threatened.
In the very long term, humanity will survive, adapt, and recover. But where we seem all but certain to be headed? We will be extremely lucky if the human population remains over 1 billion by the end of the century. Right now, we're well past the point of preventing major damage. In historical terms, we've already locked in "WW2 casualty levels." Hopefully, if we really get our act together, we can end up with casualties that look more like WW2 levels, rather than "global thermonuclear war" casualty figures.
The flipside of all that which might help is that the societal disruption was incredibly selfishly minded. Sure, protect the elderly and immunocompromised, but keep businesses running! deliver groceries! We curtailed pretty much all the good parts of our society, but kept the machines running so they'd be started when we got over the flu. Any intent to shape our lives into a more sustainable shape would probably be at least a better value for our pain, and I can't imagine it'll be as bad as a quarter of the globe retiring to doomscrolling for two years while the rest worked hard to keep things the same.
Not a scientist so take this with a grain of salt, but I assume all the biggest polluters were still polluting. Cows didn't disappear, homes didn't stop needing heat, etc.
I have also read that Co2 levels don't turn on or off like a switch. It's like shaking up a massive snow globe where instead of glittery snow it's Co2, and instead of settling in 30 seconds it settles in many years.
I think this take makes sense. I'm not a climate scientist myself, but it's not like the CO2 in the atmosphere just vanishes overnight - in fact that's the whole problem. The only way it is being removed from the atmosphere is by it being stripped by solar winds, being sequestered by plants through photosynthesis, or dissolving into bodies of water. These don't happen quickly, especially the sequestering of carbon by life.
And one important thing to note - this isn't the rate of CO2 production, which probably would look different (although higher than preindustrial levels). These are absolute levels of carbon dioxide.
Quick edit: I forgot that we can also remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in minerals or other substances, but as far as I'm aware that is not actually carbon neutral.
Relevant XKCD.
I wish the graph had started at 0 rather than 260. It would have still been pretty scary.
If you haven't already, click the button to see the last 800,000 years. That spike at the end is just incredible, even compared to other rapid spikes.
It appears that Newtonian physics or possibly calculus caused the rise in CO2 levels based on xkcd's graph.
The 800,000-year view on the site OP posted (top left button on mobile) reveals some interesting things. Even the other "vertical" lines on that page took over 2000 years for the CO2 level to increase less than it did over the last 200 years.
The 800,000 years ago graph is worth looking at, yeah there's natural fluctuation in CO2, but it takes about 50,000 years for a cycle that varies between 200 and 300pp. Meanwhile we've increased CO2 from 300 to 400ppm in a single centaury.