From the University of Exeter, this press release below and not a peep in it about the El Niño earlier this year that would have helped to degassify CO2 from the warmer portions of the Pacific ocean. But hey, its got a connection to UEA, so we know it’s quality work, right?
Global CO2 emissions back on the rise in 2010
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming – show no sign of abating and may reach record levels in 2010, according to a study led by the University of Exeter (UK).
The study, which also involved the University of East Anglia (UK) and other global institutions, is part of the annual carbon budget update by the Global Carbon Project.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience, the authors found that despite the major financial crisis that hit the world last year, global CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel in 2009 were only 1.3 per cent below the record 2008 figures. This is less than half the drop predicted a year ago.
The global financial crisis severely affected western economies, leading to large reductions in CO2 emissions. For example, UK emissions were 8.6% lower in 2009 than in 2008. Similar figures apply to USA, Japan, France, Germany, and most other industrialised nations.
However, emerging economies had a strong economic performance despite the financial crisis, and recorded substantial increases in CO2 emissions (e.g. China +8 per cent, India +6.2 per cent).
Professor Pierre Friedlingstein, lead author of the research, said: “The 2009 drop in CO2 emissions is less than half that anticipated a year ago. This is because the drop in world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was less than anticipated and the carbon intensity of world GDP, which is the amount of CO2 released per unit of GDP, improved by only 0.7 per cent in 2009 – well below its long-term average of 1.7% per year.”
The poor improvements in carbon intensity were caused by an increased share of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions produced by emerging economies with a relatively high carbon intensity, and an increasing reliance on coal.
The study projects that if economic growth proceeds as expected, global fossil fuel emissions will increase by more than 3% in 2010, approaching the high emissions growth rates observed through 2000 to 2008.
The study also found that global CO2 emissions from deforestation have decreased by over 25% since 2000 compared to the 1990s, mainly because of reduced CO2 emissions from tropical deforestation.
“For the first time, forest expansion in temperate latitudes has overcompensated deforestation emissions and caused a small net sink of CO2 outside the tropics”, says Professor Corinne Le Quéré, from the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, and author of the study. “We could be seeing the first signs of net CO2 sequestration in the forest sector outside the tropics”, she adds.
Editors’ notes
The Global Carbon Project
The Global Carbon Project was formed to assist the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base supporting policy debate and action to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The project is working towards this through a shared partnership between the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and Diversitas. This partnership constitutes the Earth Systems Science Partnership (ESSP).
More information available at: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming”
http://www.owlpages.com/the-owls/pictures/orly_owl.jpg
“….Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming [yeah… show me the evidence] – show no sign of abating and may reach record levels in 2010, according to a study led by the University of Exeter (UK)….”
This is excellent news — I’ve just put in this year’s tomatoes.
“the authors found that despite the major financial crisis that hit the world last year, global CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel in 2009 were only 1.3 per cent below the record 2008 figures.”
Did the Chinese stop building new coal fired power stations in 2009 as a mark of respect for the faltering of the western economies? I must have missed the news.
They never tire demonizing CO2. At current 390+ parts per million (ppm), even if we say it is now 400 ppm, do the math: 400 / 1,000,000 = 0.04 percent. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all gases in the atmosphere. Such a minuscule part plays a monster effect in their mind, because they have a monster plan of big time carbon robbery and taxation.
A point made in another article on this report.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/carbon-emissions-set-to-be-highest-in-history-2140291.html
The UK decreased CO2 emissions “by 5 per cent between 1992 and 2004. But if you calculate it in terms of what has been consumed in the UK then you have an increase of 12 per cent for the same years. It’s an important difference and it’s all due to shipping the industries to Asia.”
So much for our reductions. Another shell game.
Exeter is a hotbed for CAGW alarmistas, both the UK Met Office and Hadley Centre are based there.
So I think it’s safe to take anything coming out of the University of Exeter with a large dollop of skepticism.
Juraj V. says: (November 22, 2010 at 12:33 am) “Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions jpg:
“Forbidden.”
Is it really that bad, Juraj?
And here’s the same from the BBC – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11799073 – “Carbon emissions fell in 2009 due to the recession – but not by as much as predicted, suggesting the fast upward trend will soon be resumed.”
The real meaning of such a statement is that the warmists simply haven’t a clue what they’re talking about. They are so intent on perpetuating the AGW nonsense that they continue to extrapolate figures and invent trends in data using the bad maths and statistics that are an integral parts of the warmist dogma.
Chaveratti
The met office is only a couple of miles away from the University and fund a climate chair there;
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/excellence/keythemes/climate/people/
The University is also heaily involved in Met office seminars.
tonyb
Every morning one of my rituals is to have a look at what has been happening on the climate scene during my nocturnal slumber. Every morning I hope to find that sanity, accuracy or maybe even a slither of complete science has been achieved. Every morning I am disappointed, and then I recall the infamous words of the late Stephen Schneider,…”To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have….each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” I would add that in this report, lying by omission is just that – lying.
CO2 does NOT drive climate! Our emission of CO2 is but 3% of the global annual CO2 atmospheric budget all the rest-97% is from natural emitters. The hypothesis of greenhouse warming does not stand up to serious scrutiny so will eventually be shown to be false.
The University of Exeter has connections with the Hadley Center which is down the road. The connection with CRU at the UEA is through Hadley Center.
This story was also prominent today on radio broadcasts from Australia’s ABC (equivalent to UK’s BBC) – http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3072556.htm
Well, according to those in the know, yet another dollop of Global Warming is going to blanket the UK towards the end of this week, earlier than last winter. Gas prices rising, electricity prices rising (artificially to subsidise renewables), oil prices rising, the riots are just around the corner folks, when the public sector workers (among others) go on strike to protest against cuts & they can’t afford to turn their heating on to stay warm! All this in a world awash with oil, coal, & gas reserves let alone those alreadi in production. All we need now is for the Arabs to cut oil production & we will all freeze to a halt. Ah, bring back the 1970s, roaring inflation, almost daily strikes, black outs, three day weeks, that “Dunkirk” spirit, such fun days they were (not)!
Roger, since it passed through eagle eyes of moderators, not THAT bad.
Google “o rly owl” 🙂
[Not familiar with it I did do a check; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=orly ….. bl57~mod]
John Marshall says:
November 22, 2010 at 1:27 am
CO2 does NOT drive climate! Our emission of CO2 is but 3% of the global annual CO2 atmospheric budget all the rest-97% is from natural emitters. The hypothesis of greenhouse warming does not stand up to serious scrutiny so will eventually be shown to be false.
The University of Exeter has connections with the Hadley Center which is down the road. The connection with CRU at the UEA is through Hadley Center
———————————————-
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.
The authors note “This is less than half the drop predicted a year ago.”
But do they then admit that their prediction was wrong? No shame shows.
Nonoy Oplas says:
November 22, 2010 at 12:49 am
They never tire demonizing CO2. At current 390+ parts per million (ppm), even if we say it is now 400 ppm, do the math: 400 / 1,000,000 = 0.04 percent. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all gases in the atmosphere. Such a minuscule part plays a monster effect in their mind, because they have a monster plan of big time carbon robbery and taxation.
————————–
320–530 ppm of H2S leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death. That’s only a tiny percentage but it’ll have a big effect on your life!
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
Greenpeace activists organized a strong anti-coal militant movement in the Philippines so they can “save the planet.” I always challenge them to a public debate on the voodoo AGW science but they are always cowards,
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/11/greenpeace-alarism-and-anti-coal.html
SteveE says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:06 am
“Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.”
Yes that may or may not be true, personally I think not where humans are concerned, but it is really just like saying that there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was 800,001 years ago! Meaningless! Also if this type of thing is going to be quoted, can we please have a definitive figure other than those of 650,000 years, 750,000 years, & 800,000 years, as qioted by many, someone needs to make their mind up which it is, just for the sake consistency, & not for dramatic effect. I could also add to the example that there is less CO2 in our atmosphere today than there has been for over 500,000,000 years!
“The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). ”
I’ve never understood this argument. A very common side-effect of a good year for any particular agricultural product is that it is also a good year for pests. As any idiot knows, the limiting factors in the population growth for almost all animals is food supply, and there are lots of examples of massive plagues of animals (rats, mice, lemmings, locusts, etc) which are only limited by food supply. When this supply collapses, so do the populations.
So why do you assume this doesn’t apply to plants? The limiting supplies for vegetation include CO2, which commercial growers have known for a long time. Increase CO2 and you increase growth, keeping other factors constant.
What possible logic is there in assuming that if CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, (whether due to humans or not) that the amount consumed by vegetation remains constant? It’s simply daft.
“Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming – ”
Nothing starting with the facts, eh warmistas?
“may reach record levels in 2010”
may explain why my lawn Down Under is coming through the back door.
UEA is a third rate university. Exeter University is not far behind it.
Hey SteveE,
“320–530 ppm of H2S leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death. That’s only a tiny percentage but it’ll have a big effect on your life!”
H2S in not CO2.
———————
SteveE says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:18 am
320–530 ppm of H2S leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death. That’s only a tiny percentage but it’ll have a big effect on your life!
———————
CO2 limit in submarines is 8,000 ppm – 72 times more than the “anthropogenic” portion of CO2 in the atmosphere. You are breathing out 40,000 ppm. Where is the problem with 390 ppm?
———————
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
———————
Not confirmed by satellite data.
http://climate4you.com/images/OLR%20versus%20CO2%20Global.gif
IR freely escapes despite CO2 increasing. Quoting climate4you:
“Climate models predict that when the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases the natural greenhouse effect will be enhanced, so less less radiation leaves the earth to space, thereby leading to global warming. From this decreasing OLR should be expected as the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases, in contrast to the development since the CO2-concentration passed c. 360 ppm. The diagram above thereby suggests a more complicated association, where the theoretical effect of CO2 on OLR apparently is subordinate to one or several other factors.”
Maybe the reason is, that CO2 in 200 years increased from three to four molecules per 10,000 other molecules in the air. This is pretty thin blanket.
As I said in my link post, this is just an additional round of pre Cancum media stuffing. We’ve had Al Gore, now its these guys turn to fill up the column inches.
I must admit though the degree of factual ‘vagueness’ in this particular report is something to behold, a right rush job I think. The really sad thing is it is all going to do absolutely squat for the real environment and real people.