CO2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa Observatory (Hawaii). (Its not necessarily a perfect way to measure CO2 levels but its the best we've got.)

2000: ~370 ppm (parts per million)
2010: ~390 ppm
2020: ~414 ppm
2023: ~421 ppm
2024: ~424 ppm
2025 (as of mid-year peak in May): ~430 ppm

Tell me again how emissions are falling.

"Yes, economic growth has historically tracked energy use, not emissions per se. That is uncontroversial. "

Oh good. We are now in agreement. Glad you caught up.

"On batteries, whether Paul raised it or not is beside the point. It still has no bearing on whether global decoupling exists,"

Oh, so I guess its lucky I didn't make any such claim then. Yet again telling me how wrong I was to say things I never said.

With pleasure, mhaze.

//Tell me again how emissions are falling.//

You've committed a basic category error.

Mauna Loa measures atmospheric CO2 concentration (a stock), not annual emissions (a flow). Rising concentration does not imply rising emissions, just as a rising bathtub level does not mean the tap is opening wider - it can still be rising even if the inflow is slowing, as long as it exceeds the outflow.

The decoupling claim being discussed is about emissions relative to GDP, not about atmospheric concentration magically falling overnight. Those are different variables on different timescales.

Three points you're conflating:

Emissions are how much CO2 we add each year.

Concentration is the cumulative result of all past emissions, minus what oceans and land absorb.

Even if global emissions plateau or decline, concentrations will keep rising until net emissions approach zero.

That's Climate Science 101, not a gotcha.

And crucially, the claim was never that global emissions have already fallen to zero. It was that many economies have grown GDP while reducing their emissions. Both things can be true simultaneously:

- Some countries cut emissions
- Others are still increasing them
- Global concentration keeps rising because total net emissions remain positive

If you want to dispute decoupling, Mauna Loa data is irrelevant. You would need to show that:

- The countries cited did not reduce emissions
- Or that their GDP figures are wrong
- Or that reductions are purely accounting tricks

Pointing at a global concentration curve does none of that.

You're now arguing against a claim nobody made, using a metric that doesn't measure the thing in question. That's not rebuttal, it's misapplication.

If you want to engage the actual argument, we're back to emissions data by country versus GDP. Otherwise, Mauna Loa will continue doing exactly what physics says it should.

We keeping up now?

Correct, mhaze.

//Yes, economic growth has historically tracked energy use, not emissions per se. That is uncontroversial.//

That premise is widely accepted and I said so explicitly. But it's not the dispute.

The dispute is your next leap: that absolute decoupling would have happened anyway, primarily from fossil-fuel efficiency, regardless of policy or renewables. You still haven't shown that.

//Oh good. We are now in agreement. Glad you caught up.//

We were never "not in agreement" on that premise. You're treating agreement on the easy part as if it concedes your conclusion. It doesn't. The argument is about what changed to produce sustained absolute decoupling in many economies.

//On batteries ... It still has no bearing on whether global decoupling exists,//

That's correct. The battery scheme is not evidence for or against the existence of global or multi-country decoupling. It's a separate topic.

//Oh, so I guess its lucky I didn't make any such claim then.//

You didn't say "batteries disprove decoupling" in those words. Doing so would leave you no room to slink away from the claim.

What you did do was use the battery example to imply broader government incompetence and forecasting failure, in a thread about decoupling and emissions trends. If your point wasn't meant to undermine the decoupling discussion, then fine: it was off-topic noise.

//Yet again telling me how wrong I was to say things I never said.//

No. I'm pointing out that (a) agreement on "energy matters" doesn't establish your conclusion, and (b) the battery tangent doesn't rebut the decoupling evidence. If you want the core claim addressed, it's this one you made earlier:

//The phenomena of falling emissions and rising economic output would have occurred … quite apart from … the take up of renewables.//

That's a strong causal claim. Now support it. Show economies with sustained GDP growth and falling emissions without meaningful fuel switching, low-emissions generation growth, electrification, or policy pressure. Or quantify how much of the observed reductions are attributable to fossil efficiency alone.

Until you do, the "caught up" victory lap is theatre, not argument.

The claim in the report was that the decoupling was due to the take-up of renewables. Hardly surprising that they'd make that claim given they are funded by the renewables boondoggle.

But renewables were only part of the decoupling story, and not the most important part.

"You didn't say "batteries disprove decoupling" in those words. "

Oh ho. We're back to JD's you implied it theme. Make up my views and then claim I didn't say it but still believe it anyway. The batteries sub-thread was a completely off-topic post by Paul which had nowt to do with the decoupling. I merely proved were he was wrong.

No, mhaze.

//The claim in the report was that the decoupling was due to the take-up of renewables.//

The report attributes decoupling to a bundle of structural changes: fuel switching, electrification, efficiency gains, and renewables. It does not claim renewables are the sole cause. You’re flattening a multi-factor explanation into a strawman.

//Hardly surprising that they'd make that claim given they are funded by the renewables boondoggle.//

That’s an insinuation, not an argument. Unless you can show that the emissions or GDP data are wrong, funding sources are irrelevant. The underlying figures come from the Global Carbon Budget and national inventories, not donor press releases.

//But renewables were only part of the decoupling story, and not the most important part.//

A testable claim - finally. Now support it. Quantify how much of the observed absolute decoupling you attribute to:

- fossil-fuel efficiency
- renewables and fuel switching
- electrification
- policy and regulation

//Make up my views and then claim I didn't say it but still believe it anyway.//

That didn’t happen. What was pointed out is that you used the battery example rhetorically to imply broader forecasting or policy incompetence in a thread about decoupling. If that implication wasn’t intended, then the battery posts were simply off-topic.

//The batteries sub-thread was a completely off-topic post by Paul…//

Then we agree. Which means it cannot be used to undermine emissions data, GDP figures, or the existence of decoupling.

//…I merely proved were he was wrong.//

Whether Paul was right or wrong about a subsidy design has no bearing on whether multiple economies have grown GDP while cutting emissions, or on why that occurred.

So we return to your unresolved claim:

“The phenomena of falling emissions and rising economic output would have occurred … quite apart from … the take up of renewables.”

That’s a causal claim. Support it.

Show economies with sustained GDP growth and falling emissions without meaningful fuel switching, low-emissions generation growth, electrification, or policy pressure. Or quantify how much of the observed decoupling is attributable to fossil-fuel efficiency alone.

Until then, disputes over “implication” are mere squirming.