zlacker

> CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and humanity is only responsible for 3% of its creation

That 3% extra per year is enough to tip the scales so that net CO2 in the atmosphere has been growing (don’t need a model for that, it can be directly measured).

>>lovecg+(OP)
> That 3% extra per year

3% per year would be dangerous: in the 60s it used to be 320 out of a million molecules of air, 320*(1.03^(2023-1960)) = 2060 per million. A cognitive decline is observable as of 1000 per million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Below_1%

Don't underestimate compound interest across multiple generations!

>>lucb1e+M4
Yeah as I understand it, 3% extra is on the emission side, some of each is offset by extra absorption in the oceans, etc. so the net increase is smaller. The skeptics have to explain where the increase is coming from if not from human activity.

>>lovecg+P7
Ah, that makes more sense. I'm not really familiar with the emissions side versus absorption side of things, more with the resulting ppm value and degrees warming.

Looking into this now, though, the linked website has a emissions page[1] which shows only an absolute number rather than a year-on-year increase. Where did you find the YoY value of ~3%?

[1] https://climatechangetracker.org/co2/human-induced-yearly-co...