Guest post by Willis Eschenbach
The upcoming Copenhagen climate summit, officially and ponderously named “COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009”, is aimed at reducing the emissions of the developed world. The main players, of course, are the US and Western Europe. There is a widespread perception that if the US and Western Europe could only get our CO2 emissions under control, the problem would be solved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To see the gaping hole in this idea, it is only necessary to look at the historical record of carbon emissions. Here is that graph:
While in 1970 the US and Western Europe combined to contribute about half of all CO2 emissions, at present this is far from true. In the past 35 years, the combined emissions of the US and Western Europe have risen only slightly. Globally, however, CO2 emissions have risen steeply, with no end in sight.
So it doesn’t matter if Europe signs on to a new Kyoto. It doesn’t matter if the US adopts Cap and Trade. Both of them together will make no significant difference. Even if both areas could roll their CO2 emissions back to 1970 levels, it would not affect the situation in the slightest.
These are meaningless attempts to hold back a rising tide of emissions. Me, I don’t think rising CO2 levels are a problem. But if you think it will be a problem, then you should definitely concentrate on adaptation strategies .. because mitigation simply isn’t going to work.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Keith Flanders (06:39:06) :
One need to make a distinction between what happens with an addition of extra CO2 above a (dynamic) equilibrium and the (natural) variability around an equilibrium.
The first is a matter of differential pressure between CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans (the main sink) and vegetation (the second sink). As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the upwelling of CO2 from the deep oceans (mainly in the equatorial Pacific) is somewhat reduced (the partial CO2 pressure difference is reduced), while at the poles the pressure difference towards more absorption is increased. If we stop all emissions today, the pressure difference (and thus the uptake of CO2 by the oceans) will drop at a rate of 50% in 38 years, thus 25% after 76 years, 12.5% after 114 years,…
But as the emissions are increasing more or less exponential, the partial pressure difference between atmosphere and oceans increases further and in average about halve of the increasing emissions are absorbed by the oceans (and vegetation). That was the case over about the whole past century until now, see:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
A good explanation of the CO2 partial pressure difference between oceans and atmosphere is here:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
The second is mainly a matter of temperature (and precipitation): warmer oceans absorb less CO2, but warmer (and wetter) weather gives more vegetation growth. In this case, the oceans have the highest influence over a year and longer. The temperature influence is practically independent of the increase in CO2, but is the cause of most of the variability around the trend. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
The CO2 curve with sufficient resolution is rather short, but it looks like that natural variability is about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend which is currently at around 2 ppmv/year. It doesn’t look that the natural variability changed much over the past 60 years, with only a few extremes like the 1992 Pinatubo eruption (cooler ocean surface, more absorption, less increase in the atmosphere) and the very warm 1998 El Niño.
Thus all together: the 38 half life time is only for the extra CO2 above the (old) equilibrium, while the about 50% variability around the trend (the variable “plughole”) is compared to the current emissions, but as these are steadily increasing, the ratio between natural variability (the “noise” in the system) and the emissions/increase (the “signal”) in the atmosphere will dwindle further.
But this discussion indeed is OT, as in any case the contribution of the European/US countries in the CO2 emissions increase is negligible and any reduction of CO2 in these countries wil have a futile effect on the increase…
I’m still waiting for some eager young Kyoto or Copenhagen disciple to explain how moving production from the clean factories here to dirty factories in China will decrease real pollution and C02 emissions.
Chinese industry pollutes more per unit of production, and they have said they will not be making any concessions in the New Copenhagen treaty.
So cost to industry here will go up, but it won’t go up in China.
So more production moves from the clean plants here to the dirty plants there.
Ergo, more pollution, not less.
And we would be shipping more raw materials there and more finished products back, so even more pollution will result.
It wouldn’t be the first time the environmental movement made things worse instead of better.
How will moving production from clean factories here to dirty factories in China reduce pollution?