Here’s the latest global temperature plot from UAH:
From Eurekalert: Human emissions rise 2 percent despite global financial crisis
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: Human emissions rise 2 percent despite the global financial crisis.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
Despite the economic effects of the global financial crisis (GFC), carbon dioxide emissions from human activities rose 2 per cent in 2008 to an all-time high of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, according to a paper published today in Nature Geoscience.
The paper – by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group, the Global Carbon Project (GCP) – says rising emissions from fossil fuels last year were caused mainly by increased use of coal but there were minor decreases in emissions from oil and deforestation.
“The current growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP),” said one of the paper’s lead authors, CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach.
“CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are estimated to have increased 41 per cent above 1990 levels with emissions continuing to track close to the worst-case scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“There will be a small downturn in emissions because of the GFC, but anthropogenic emissions growth will resume when the economy recovers unless the global effort to reduce emissions from human activity is accelerated.”
The GCP estimates that the growth in emissions from developing countries increased in part due to the production of manufactured goods consumed in developed countries. In China alone, 50 per cent of the growth in emissions from 2002 to 2005 was attributed to the country’s export industries.
According to the GCP’s findings, atmospheric CO2 growth was about four billion metric tonnes of carbon in 2008 and global atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached 385 parts per million – 38 per cent above pre-industrial levels.
According to co-author and GCP Executive Director, CSIRO’s Dr Pep Canadell, the findings also indicate that natural carbon sinks, which play an important role in buffering the impact of rising emissions from human activity, have not been able to keep pace with rising CO2 levels.
“On average only 45 per cent of each year’s emissions remain in the atmosphere,” Dr Canadell said.
“The remaining 55 per cent is absorbed by land and ocean sinks.
“However, CO2 sinks have not kept pace with rapidly increasing emissions, as the fraction of emissions remaining in the atmosphere has increased over the past 50 years. This is of concern as it indicates the vulnerability of the sinks to increasing emissions and climate change, making natural sinks less efficient ‘cleaners’ of human carbon pollution.”
More than 30 experts from major international climate research institutions contributed to the GCP’s annual Global Carbon Budget report – now considered a primary reference on the human effects on atmospheric CO2 for governments and policy-makers around the world.
Media Note:
Dr Raupach will be available to speak to the media at a briefing at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney at 10.30am today.
For details go to: www.aussmc.org or contact Imogen Jubb on 0417 258 020.
Image available at: http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/mediarelease/mr09-206.html
Further Information:
Dr Michael Raupach, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research
Ph: +61 2 6246 5573
Ph: +61 408 020 952
Dr Pep Canadell, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research
Further information available at: www.globalcarbonproject.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
O Noes!
Really.
I have gone on an on here about how the oceans control the O lelve
When do people think the UAH 13 month average will dip below 0 next?
Andy
“According to co-author and GCP Executive Director, CSIRO’s Dr Pep Canadell, the findings also indicate that natural carbon sinks, which play an important role in buffering the impact of rising emissions from human activity, have not been able to keep pace with rising CO2 levels.”
CSIRO’s Dr Pep Canadell’s statement appears to disagree with this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/#more-12703
The article makes the assumption that the EPA ruling of C02 being a toxic pollutant. That is not a substantiated claim, as life on Earth has run through many rises and falls of C02 and is none the worse for wear.
The focus should be on the true polutants, like S02 and Mercury. Dumping of chemical wastes, petrochemicals, plastic litter, etc.
Clean of C02 Energy is not the burning issue for Earth.
Honey, I saved the Planet but started WWIII.
If the Planet got saved, but nobody was left alive, would a cheer go up?
Recall your basic reason for warfare: Resources.
Pull the plug on Energy resources and out come the armies.
Duh.
The article makes the assumption that the EPA ruling of C02 being a toxic pollutant.
Correction: Should read
The article makes the assumption that the EPA ruling of C02 being a toxic pollutant is a given.
Somewhat predictable given the biomass increase reported here and elsewhere. Now if the CO2 starts to increase dramatically because of global cooling, that will presage an ice age. Our weathermen and climatologists are delusional.
“…by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group…”
Appeal to authority. Losers.
Same old, same old. Yet another example of climate scientists who does not understand how dynamic chaotic system like the carbon cycle works. However, the killer blow to the AGW hypothesis is that temperatures have been fairly flat for the last 10 years, whilst CO2 continues to rise.
Should the sun continue in it’s quiet mode and, as seems likely, temperatures continue to fall, even the most fanatical of AGW believers will realise this.
I have a question. Maybe it’s stupid, but I don’t see the answer.
Alarmists say that due to humans, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that we go to a catastrophe. And that, if we did not emit CO2, all would be OK. On the other hand, I have read that the human emission of CO2 is only 4 percent of natural emission.
Now, let the natural emission be 100 (arbitrary units). Then, the human emission is 4, giving a total of 100+4=104. I cannot believe that 100 would be OK but that 104 would lead to a catastrophe.
If an emission of 100 doesn’t increase the amount of CO2, this must be due to the fact that “the nature” reabsorbs those 100. Why does nature not reabsorbs 104? Am I missing something?
Well, strictly speaking the CO2 has increased 2% since 2008 and the temperature has gone up since 2008; But I know that making trends over such short timescales is nonsense.
If I do the same over the last 20 years, well… The CO2 goes up and sso do temperatures. Same with 30 years. So where’s the problem ? The only way not to get a similar trend is to look at very small time intervals, where we know that making trends means nothing. So I would say: CO2 goes up, and so do temperatures.
“The current growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP),” said one of the paper’s lead authors, CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach”.
The paper – by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group, the Global Carbon Project (GCP) – says rising emissions from fossil fuels last year were caused mainly by increased use of coal but there were minor decreases in emissions from oil and DEFORESTATION.
I think CSIRO and Dr. Mike Raupach can stick their report where the sun don’t shines.
It’s as biased and alarmist as can be and in full support of the current Government policies to kill the World Economy without presenting any hard proof.
Besides that, I would like to know how Dr. Raupach measure CO2 emissions from deforestation?
We know 2008 was a bad year for wild fires but wildfires in Australia but wild fires have made Australia to what it is. So I simply wonder how Dr. Raupach is able to make a difference between natural wild fires and human induced wild fires caused by deforestation.
The fact that Dr. Raupach uses his story to promote the “consensus” and takes his BS story on tour is a further indication that he stands on the wrong side of science providers. It makes me question if he is not a “Hanson” wannabe!
This entire story smells like a big fat dead rat.
However, CO2 sinks have not kept pace with rapidly increasing emissions, as the fraction of emissions remaining in the atmosphere has increased over the past 50 years. This is of concern as it indicates the vulnerability of the sinks to increasing emissions and climate change, making natural sinks less efficient ‘cleaners’ of human carbon pollution.
No, the Bombshell from Bristol last week was:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/
So the newest findings indicate that Dr Pep Canadell has it exactly bassackwards.
Rob Vermeulen,
Equally, temperatures go up and so does CO2. Now, which causes which? The ice cores suggest an answer.
On the other hand, I have read that the human emission of CO2 is only 4 percent of natural emission.
Whether human emissions are 4% or some other %age is irrelevant. What matters is whether the net effect of human emissions increases atmospheric CO2 and there is little doubt that they do.
The reason is that natural emissions are in balance with natural capture of CO2. Therefore the net effect is zero (or so it is assumed)
A piece in the firmly alarmist “The Independent” apparently based on the same bunch of “scientists”:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html
Interesting that the report specifically claims that:-
“the scientists have for the first time detected a failure of the Earth’s natural ability to absorb man-made carbon dioxide released into the air.
“They found significant evidence that more man-made CO2 is staying in the atmosphere to exacerbate the greenhouse effect because the natural “carbon sinks” that have absorbed it over previous decades on land and sea are beginning to fail, possibly as a result of rising global temperatures.
“The amount of CO2 that has remained in the atmosphere as a result has increased from about 40 per cent in 1990 to 45 per cent in 2008. This suggests that the sinks are beginning to fail, they said.”
This directly contradicts the findings of the recent University of Bristol paper which found the direct opposite:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/
Don’t know who is right but, bearing in mind that there is absolutely no evidence that the effect of human CO2 emissions is other than trivial and beneficial, I am not inclined to trust the prognoses of some Professor at the University of East Anglia. We all know what calibre of ‘scientists’ hang out there!
In China alone, 50 per cent of the growth in emissions from 2002 to 2005 was attributed to the country’s export industries.
To a significant extent this was due to Kyoto, which shifted energy intensive industries (steel, cement, etc) from energy efficient, developed countries to energy inefficient China and other developing countries.
For example, it takes 50% more energy to make a ton of steel in China compared to Japan or Germany.
Kyoto caused, in large part, the growth in emissions documented above. Copenhagen will doubtless make the problem worse and increase CO2 emissions further.
“If I do the same over the last 20 years, well… The CO2 goes up and sso do temperatures. Same with 30 years. So where’s the problem ?”
But if we look at 50 years, the rise is small – and over 100, or 150 a little over half a degree per century.
We can all play cherry picking games.
However, what matters is not wheher there’s no trend at all; it’s whether that trend is small. If it’s for example, of similar size to that over the last century. A rise of perhaps half a degree really isn’t an issue. It’ll increase net output of food, and reduce mortality (cold kills more people tha heat).
That’s why the lack of significant warming over the last 12 years or so matters. The arguments for action are based on the continuance of what now look like the anomalous warming rates of the 1980s/1990s (particularly the latter). If those arguments fail, then we’re in a very different place.
Late in 2006, the Institute for Public Policy Research, a Socialist think=tank in the UK, proposed that the Left should in future merely assert that there was no scientific dissent, the debate was over, and the Earth doomed.
http://twawki.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/get-ready-for-the-brave-new-world/
Why does it surprise us that the ongoing propaganda machines continues to twist the truth. If Copenhagen goes ahead get ready for global governance.
Rob Vermeulen (23:32:53) :
“So I would say: CO₂ goes up, and so do temperatures.”
Rather: as temperatures go up, so does CO₂. At least that’s what ice core data would say, along with the “champagne bottle effect”.
Those two large cooling towers on the left in the picture are releasing water vapour not CO₂, and I don’t think “human emissions” include H₂O.
People won’t be dumb enough to fall for “water vapor taxation”… hopefully.
Rob
Cows lie down when it is going to rain. BUT they also get tired feet, cold udders and full stomachs. Your are talking rubbish.
Rob Vermeulen (23:32:53) :
Look back to 1850 as a start point and do the same analysis. There has been modest, long-term warming since at least the mid-1800s. Keep in mind that anthropogenic CO2 production was a small fraction of today’s emissions. The warming in the first half of the 1900s is similar to or higher than the modern trend, yet the anthropogenic CO2 emissions were far lower. Why the difference with today’s CO2/trend ratio? One would expect that higher emissions = higher warming trend.
“So I would say: CO2 goes up, and so do temperatures.”
Rob, kindly explain how the rise in CO2 from 1940 – 1979 was not reflected in a temperature rise during that time. In fact, temperatures fell a lot during that time leading to scientists (one notable Dr Hansen amongst them) creating alarmist doom laden headlines in the media about an impending ice age?
Rob Vermeulen (23:32:53) :
Well, strictly speaking the CO2 has increased 2% since 2008 and the temperature has gone up since 2008; But I know that making trends over such short timescales is nonsense.
If I do the same over the last 20 years, well… The CO2 goes up and sso do temperatures. Same with 30 years. So where’s the problem ? The only way not to get a similar trend is to look at very small time intervals, where we know that making trends means nothing. So I would say: CO2 goes up, and so do temperatures.
But according to Professor Corinne Le Quéré (UEA/BAS) new study, there has been a “29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008”. As this is much greater than the IPCC estimates, these researchers are now suggesting a 6C temperature rise by 2080, which is an average of 0.86C per decade. Yet during the last decade the global temperature trend has been flat and arguably cooling. Go figure. I suggest that 0.85C per decade is way too much to be disguised by natural variability, so the warmists must be getting really desperate and prepared to risk all in the run up to Copenhagen. See http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise and http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise for more details of this latest warmist tosh.
p.s. I notice that someone else has been posting using the name “Andrew P” – I am the original, based in Scotland.
Jean Meeus (23:00:30)
Not a stupid question at all.
This is one of the (many) key issues that the alarmists gloss over.
Here, let me instead show you a picture of a starving Polar Bear.
What about a bleached-out and fish-free Great Barrier Reef?
Here are some Hurricane Katrina photographs – look at the dead bodies floating down the streets!
Jeez, get with the program, Jean! You are not allowed to have independent thoughts such as you have expressed, and soon (very soon) such thoughts will be illegal crimes against society, if not already.
Which we all think would be double-plus good.