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
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.
It would be interesting to see CO2 emissions and temperature in same picture. I guess there is slight divergence…
Further, it is not possible to distinguish which portions of atmospheric CO2 increase are natural origin and human origin. Carbon sinks capabilities are also dependent on CO2 concentration – it is known fact that that plants grow faster in laboratory when CO2 concentration is increased. Deforestation might be also reason why CO2 rises, natural sinks are weakened by humans.
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 ? ”
Of course, making trends over a period of one year is nonsense. But actually we have no change of the mean global temperature since 2001, although CO2 is going up. That standstill during 8 years was not expected by the IPCC.
I second Rob V: I would like to read an outline of how you believe one should choose a sample length to detect a trend. We recently had a very warm week – I could choose a sample length to demonstrate Spring is coming. However, it isn’t – you need a longer sample to be able to detect which season we’re going towards.
So: how many years do you think we should use to detect climate trends? What criteria do you use to decide? I would use a simple one – when variability drops enough to detect a general tendency (i.e. when the sign of the trendline stops flipping often.)
Of course, you’re header, “CO2 still going up, but temperature not following the same trend” doesn’t necessarily mean you doubt the link between co2 and temperature increase, but it would be good to know what you think about the statistics of picking out climate forcings from natural variability. Nobody ever claimed co2 would perfectly match temperature changes, as far as I know. Using the season example again – what method would you use to pick out “forcing due to tilt”, that drives the seasons, from other weather-system related variability? Or would you claim that the lack of perfect correlation between tilt to the sun and daily temperature shows that seasons are not the factor we thought they were?
“[…] 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, […]”
Carbon or CO2? I can’t tell if the article is using the terms interchangeably or not.
Carbon soot… cough, cough!
CO2… plant food.
These alarmists are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Each year they confirm that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are rising. At the same time scientists, sceptics and members of the public are increasingly aware that temperature has remained flat and/or falling for the past decade. This creates more questions, more sceptics, more deserters etc.,
As mentioned above by John F. Hultquist (21:57:47) : the first thing I thought of was last week’s item at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/
Could someone explain to this layman what’s up?
@Rob V
Why not go back even further in time. Did CO2 increase to cause the MWP and decrease to cause the Little Ice Age?
The UK’s Independent newspaper today leads with a study that the Earth’s temperature will rise by six degrees C by 2100 – also shown here at the Guardian site http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/17/global-temperature-rise?CMP=AFCYAH Worryingly, there’s a comment from:
Dr. Bruno Walther
Visiting Assistant Professor for Environmental Science
College of Public Health and Nutrition
Taipei Medical University
Taipei, Taiwan
…He thinks that ocean acidification will make the oceans “acid soup”. Seems, despite his qualifications, he missed the fact about past CO2 levels.
Finally Steve has got his due read WSJ go to CA first
There are thousands of thermometers to measure the so called global temperature, but how many CO2-meters are there?
The reason for this is simple. Everyone knows that the CO2 emissions from developing countries are far less damaging than the CO2 emissions from developed economies especially the US. Just look at the Copenhagen convention to understand this fact. Once the developed countries economies begin to recover and their CO2 emissions rise watch out -temperatures will go through the roof. Given this fact the only logical conclusion is that we move all economic activity to less developed nations and the developed nations simply live in abject poverty from this point forward.
over at the BBC:
“Average temperatures across the world are on course to rise by up to 6C without urgent action to curb CO2 emissions, according a new analysis.
Emissions rose by 29% between 2000 and 2008, says the Global Carbon Project.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8364926.stm
rbateman: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.
You are absolutely right, wars between Spain, France, England and the U.S. WWI and WWII were all over trade, resources. However Will there be a war over Global Warming? I don’t think so. According to the UNFCCC developed countries will bear the burden of the cost. Sign over their rights and sovereignty to the UN. So we give that up, voluntarily, and the undeveloped nations will have everything to gain. The Copenhagen conference is clearly a system of re-distribution of wealth form developed nations to those less developed, and has nothing to do with the science of global environment. Power and huge amounts of money.
“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.”
.
This statement is so staggeringly stupid that it is not even wrong .
The authors for some strange reason which is certainly due to a complete ignorance of physics are not even able to make the difference between a system in equilibrium and a system OUT of equilibrium .
By saying that oceans “do not keep pace” with increasing CO2 concentration they imply that the system SHOULD be in equilibrium but isn’t .
It amounts to say : “A system out of equilibrium is not in equilibrium .”
WOW ! What an insight !
Well , errr … yes . The system is not in equilibrium . Has never been and will never be .
The simple observation that CO2 concentration varies with time is a proof that there is no equilibrium .
Why should the oceans keep the atmospheric CO2 concentration constant ? Indeed , why ?
Why should the oceanic streams and the multiple reactions involving CO2 , CO2– , HCO3- , H2CO3 happening in a wide range of temperatures from 0°C to 30°C settle in some steady state so that one specific variable , CO2 atmospheric concentration stays constant ?
Because the oceans have a moral obligation to “clean up” what some morons consider being “human carbon pollution” as opposed to “natural carbon pollution” ?
Perhaps in some fancy Universe of theirs but not in the real one where we live .
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)
How do we know that?
Do we know each natural source and sink to sufficient accuracy to prove balance? Or does man’s emissions fall withing the cumulative round off errors of the other sources and sinks?
How do we know that the CO2 that is building up is from man and not nature?
Thanks
JK
Purakanui (00:14:22) : “Equally, temperatures go up and so does CO2. Now, which causes which? The ice cores suggest an answer.”
Straw man: no-one ever suggested the ice core causal link was so direct. This nice little film actually quotes the relevant bits from the paper.
The devil is in the “Sensitivity.” For people to claim “It can’t be a problem if human-created CO2 is less than 4%.” Feels good, instinctively.
Technically, we DON’T KNOW how minor adjustments impact the overall system!
I’m not stumping for the greens here, I’m just sayin…the more we learn about Climate Change, the more we learn we don’t know.
I go back to my basic tenets:
–How can we predict GLOBAL (anything) if we can’t even predict LOCAL (anything)?
–There are so many variables, each with their own sensitivity, it’s LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to predict any of this. (Therefore, it must be FAITH, just like any other religion)
–I do not trust the measuring process
–It’s all about power (control the people)
–We have the ability to vote these bums out, but we choose not to (shame on us)
AndyW (21:49:36) :
When do people think the UAH 13 month average will dip below 0 next?
Dec 2010 – Jan 2011
i konw it ahs alredy been mentioned but some papers ( i read recently in energy and environment )suggest that there has a been a constant abosrption by the biosphere of co2 that has risen more or less in line with increases in Co2, secondly it is not expected to wear off because of the increased carbon dioxide uptake by plants due to increased rates of photosynthesis at higher concentratiosn of co2. I presume this also applies for ocean plants as well as suugested in a wuwt article earlier in the week where they ere amazaed at the uptake of co2 by various plants in marine corals. ( ithink hansen was involved in this!!)
Dan Olner:
“Of course, you’re header, “CO2 still going up, but temperature not following the same trend” doesn’t necessarily mean you doubt the link between co2 and temperature increase, but it would be good to know what you think about the statistics of picking out climate forcings from natural variability.”
Ok Dan, I’ll have a go. Let’s start with the forcings attributed to CO2. According to GISS, human caused CO2 leads to a radiative imbalance as temperature rise lag behind the forcings. This radiative imbalance should amount to 0.6 watts/m2 with the consequence that the ocean should contain a positive anomolay of 5.8 * 10**22 joules by 2008 compared to 2003. Now here are the observations:
2003 ~0 Joules
2004 ~0 Joules
2005 ~0 Joules
2006 ~0 Joules
2007 ~0 Joules
2008 ~0 Joules
For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 9.8 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next four years. This requires a heating rate over the next 4 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean of 2.45 * 10**22 Joules per year, which corresponds to a radiative imbalance of ~1.50 Watts per square meter.
In other words, heat accumulation implied by the models, cannot be found. If it exists nobody knows where it is. If it in fact does not exist, then the hypothesised radiative imbalance does not exist and CO2 is not forcing the climate. You cannot argue this away by talking about short term cooling. Energy can neither by created nor destroyed. It either exists or it doesn’t. If all the best observations cannot locate this missing energy then there cannot be any CO2 forcing. Here’s the link to the article:
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/18/comments-on-a-new-paper-global-ocean-heat-content-1955%e2%80%932008-in-light-of-recently-revealed-instrumentation-problems-by-levitus-et-al-2009/
July, 2010
“This suggests that the sinks are beginning to fail, they said.” So, now the “sinks are failing”? Should we have a “save the sinks” campaign? These so-called “scientists” at GCP are pathetic morons, and/or frauds, and their paper is suitable only for lining bird cages. C02 is life, and the more we have, the better.
Jean Meeus (23:00:30) :
> 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?
This is outside my area of expertise, but one the observations is that CO2 levels increase _after_ the planet’s temperature increases. That implies the changes in the Mauna Loa data reflect ocean temperature, and given the warming during the recent PDO warm phases, the suggestion is credible. Also, given that Mauna Loa was selected to be far from human CO2 sources, it needs a control to counter all the water around it, mixing with sea level air should be studied, mixing of ocean water and differential CO2 concentrations at the surface and subsurface, etc.
I have some trouble with all that (and the worries that 100+4 leads to catastrophe), but it could fit in with Pre-Keeling CO2 observations.
More [scientific] study needed (there’s no need for more political study).
John Silver (03:19:02) : “There are thousands of thermometers to measure the so called global temperature, but how many CO2-meters are there?”
Not so many thousands, John, as just a few years ago GISSTemp (Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis) dropped many (historical) thermometers and moved them from true rural and higher altitudes to airports, urban heat island areas, and the beach — always something like south and down on every continent (with some appropriate adjustments for the Southern Hemisphere).
ALWAYS WARMING, even if a little bit. See E.M. Smith’s blog “Musings from the Chiefio” for detail that explores the innards of GISSTemp computer programming. You can do it,too. And I suspect you will become as appalled as Mr. Smith. Never mind CO2. The biosphere seems to be able to handle our output. What about accurate temperatures measured by reliable thermometers? (Of course, see A. Watt’s surface stations project for beautiful details of this obfuscation.) http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
(Not long ago Britain’s official climate data from Hadley’s CRU – Climate Research Unit — was LOST or DESTROYED (unless it has now been found). It used many of the same sources as GISSTemp. Its disappearance occurred right after Steve McIntyre found some of the raw data with code.)
Lots of hankey-pankey going on both with thermometers and with the “adjustments” to which their data is subjected by these “trusted” government bureaus.
I include a quote from NASA’s GISSTemp re how they make sure their temperature data is accurate: “This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which has now increased to about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981”
Oh, yeah???
It seem the second law of thermodynamic still hold true.
Since we are near what Hansen and the AGW promotion community call the ‘worst case’, let us think about how their predictions have played out.
According to the predictions of Hansen, by this scenario we should see Manhattan inundated, foliage changes in New York, great storms in the Atlantic hurricane basin, no winter in the NE USA, etc. etc.
They were wrong on each and every particular of their predictions.
But yet tey still claim to be right, and get away with it.
And what evidence do they offer that CO2 sinks are topping off?
None.
To make this article more meaningful, the global temperature anomaly curve and the global co2 level curve should be shown on the same graph for the same time period . Also it is confusing to have two articles back to back claiming opposite view points without some comment about the earlier study .I know it confuses me .
There is an assumption here that rising CO2 levels means it must be from man-made sources. Just as the climate changes naturally all the time, so does the mix of trace gases in the atmosphere.
It is just plain wrong and scientifically indefensible to posit that CO2 levels would not have changed in recent centuries except for human emissions or other changes brought about by human activities.
As others have correctly pointed out, CO2 levels rise after warming. The oceans give up CO2 when they warm. This inconvenient fact is conveniently ignored.
@Mr.. Alex: I don’t think “human emissions” include H₂O.
Well, not yet.
from what I could read this article is just discussing a computer model of CO2 level. Can anyone buy these guys a tool to actually measure CO2 levels or is that too much like real reasearch
Dan Olner (03:53:27) :
I am, unusually for me, lost for words. Other than the immortal Nelson Muntz’ “Ha ha”.
Somewhat OT…
While I’m convinced AGW is debunked. Apparently, there are many who are not reading the right blogs.
Here is an article about the UN Population Fund. The point is they’re trying to fight climate change by limiting population growth through free condom distribution. Ha ha!
They make some outrageous statements as fact. It boggles the mind…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_sc/climate_population_growth
– “It also said that while there is no doubt that “people cause climate change,”…”
– “”We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster,” she said.”
– “”Women with access to reproductive health services … have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions.””
I’m weary…
Global Warming: A Medical Approach
My face is flushed. It is caused by increased heart rate and rising blood pressure. By applying a tourniquet around my carotid artery and cutting off blood supply to the head – I will slow the flushing.
Funny though. I don’t feel so good;(
Rob Vermeulen (23:32:53) :
“So I would say: CO₂ goes up, and so do temperatures.”
And I would say as temperatures go up so does CO2. Of course both arguments are nonsense. CO2 does cause a minimal amount of increased warming. But as far as temperature and accuracy we cannot even be sure of the numbers we have thanks to the work of Anthony Watts. In addition to our sampling being biased we then run corrective algorithms on it… So say the temperature was recorded as 100 degrees it could then be corrected either up or down depending on whatever corrective algorithm the scientist thought was applicable. If there is one thing I know it is when you change an observed set of data to a new adjusted set of data, well the words worthless start to escape my mouth… Would you base a business decision based on adjusted data? So the MINIMAL amount of warming we have seen over the last 150 years is nothing more then interesting. If you look at the time periods you suggest, 20 years ago, 30 years ago you are correct, go back 75 years ago and you are wrong, warming is flat lol. So what do you do? When time scales OF CENTURIES are meaningless how do you come up with an applicable scale to suggest what is to be done.
The entire warming story relies on feed back loops which may occur but to date we have seen precious little evidence of it. So let me put it to you like this. Heaven is a theory, i.e. afterlife etc and it really can only be proven one way ( a way each of us will reach one day ) based on the theory of heaven would you institute a world wide religion? Currently the same is happening with feed back loops and CO2 the theory is CO2 will cause feedback loops and we are more then willing to institute a worldwide religion to stop this from happening. It is not even faith that this is based on since faith is typically found in people who say they have had a religious experience, it is instead simply based on belief!!! On guesses that people have. Show me one place where a feedback loop can be proven. Not evidence that it might exist but actual proof that the system is occurring. It is not out there. If it were I would be singing a different tune right now. Since I only care about the proof and there ain’t none.
I think you are all missing the point. CO2 levels are increasing which means humans are pumping out increasing levels of CO2 into the atmo and it does not go away quickly. The biomass of the planet cannot absorb it faster than our ability to increasingly pump it out.
There is nothing inconsistent about a non-warming period before another run-up in temperatures based on what the GCM’s have modeled. Only another 5 years or so of flat or cooling temps will invalidate their predictions from the year 2000.
It’s very possible that we should be experiencing very cold temps now but that the extra CO2 is preventing that. It’s possible that the next upswing in temps will begin to become extreme with temp anomalies +1.0 or greater.
I don’t think that the “skeptics” or the “warmers” know for sure what will happen in the next five years but we should find out who’s right sometime around 2016. Until then patience is a virtue.
Shiny
Ed
Dan Olner (03:53:27) :
“This nice little film actually quotes the relevant bits from the paper.”
Dan, that’s about as lame an AGW propaganda video as I’ve ever seen. Surely you can do better than that.
Lubos Motl has embedded an interesting video about CERN’s CLOUD project to be found here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/adhesive-duck-deficiency.html
Bruce Cobb,
No, Dan can’t.
Ed – it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it is eventually shown that increased CO2 (above 220ppmv) actually causes net cooling. There are clues. Transpiration and lapse rates for example.
There is evidence coming along that will show the tiny, tiny warming at the end of the 20thC to have been completely other than CO2 caused.
Do not hold the front page…..
pat (22:36:54) if the CO2 starts to increase dramatically because of global cooling, Cooler oceans hold more CO2, so cooling would reduce CO2.
pyromancer76 (05:31:02) I agree, the decimation of the surface temperature monitoring system has to exagerate any temperature increase, let alone what GISS software does to the readings.
At the risk of being annoying, for posting these too often, here is the # of stations vs. temps: http://i27.tinypic.com/14b6tqo.jpg
Here is one of the adjustments made to the readings: http://i42.tinypic.com/2luqma8.jpg
Here is the decimation of the global network of surface temp. sites, odd since temperature is allegedly so important: http://i44.tinypic.com/23vjjug.jpg
To those who have pointed out the disparity between this study and the Bristol U. study discussed last week – welcome to the world of “Climate Studies”.
Different studies measure different things and then perform analyses for different purposes. I am extrapolating a bit here, but the way I understand it it, the Bristol study looked at the ratio of CO2 that could be attributed to fossil fuel use to that which could not (based on isotope signatures I think). They reported their findings as showing that the proportion of “man-made” CO2 was pretty constant and from this, deduced that sinks are keeping pace with the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
I haven’t read the basic study quoted here, but I suspect it is based on production statistics (i.e. how much coal, oil, gas has been used) and a comparison of this to measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This is a quite different metric and their estimate of the fixation of CO2 (by whatever sinks there are) will be based on the difference between their production numbers and atmospheric levels.
Thus, comparing the two studies is like comparing apples and oranges and is made worse by the fact that there is political pressure to interpret every study in light of the postulated climate catastrophe we are all told IS going to happen. This is the real world of climate studies – trying to make political capital out of whatever piece of research is published this week.
I would – personally – like to contrast this with climate science (practised by a sadly small number of “climate scientists”) where theories of the role of various physical climate forcings are tested by collection of real data and published or otherwise placed in the public domain for the whole community to discuss. Such publications may include statements on whether the findings support (or otherwise) the theory of man-made global warming, but this is not their purpose.
Scientific discussion does not proceed by press release and whenever you see a press release about a paper be very very cautious about what it says. (I would have said skeptical, but somehow it just seemed too much).
George S. (06:51:36) :
Somewhat OT… Here is an article about the UN Population Fund.
These announcements from UN Population Fund need to be accompanied with the same judge-ordered paper like AIT presentations in UK schools. It’s an UN institution as IPCC and plainly repeats the same.
But there is more behind: The population bureaucrats see how much more money the climate bureaucrats get and want to catch up of course.
Late in October, directors of 3 leading German Geophysical insitutes have expressed that limiting global warming at 2°C does not make sense (good “news”) but that geophysical research has to be extended. Same pattern as above.
It is a funny thing to see the settled climate science being questioned by others now loudly for whatever reasons.
Sad thing, that the non-existing climate issue turns to be extremely inhuman.
Delete mankind, save the planet.
Rob Vermeulen (23:32:53) :
“So I would say: CO2 goes up, and so do temperatures.”
And so do the sale of Big Macs. Very convincing, Rob!
Didn’t you have another post recently that the fraction of emissions retained in the atmosphere hasn’t changed?
Hi edward, you wrote(07:22:55) :
[I think you are all missing the point. CO2 levels are increasing which means humans are pumping out increasing levels of CO2 into the atmo and it does not go away quickly…]
I would like to reply
No, yes, yes, and it most definitely disappears within a couple of years!
to your statmement and like to cite Prof Segalstad:
http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_CO2-Science_090805.pdf
“The correct evaluation of the CO2 residence time — giving values of about 5 years for the bulk of the atmospheric CO2 molecules, as per Essenhigh’s (2009) reasoning and numerous measurements with different methods — tells us that the real world’s CO2 is part of a dynamic (i.e. non-static) system, where about one fifth of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged every year between different sources and sinks, due to relatively fast equilibria and temperature-dependent CO2 partitioning governed by the chemical Henry’s Law (Segalstad 1992; Segalstad, 1996; Segalstad, 1998).
From this viewpoint anthropogenic CO2 posses no thread and it seems straightforward that the current increase of the atmospheric CO2-concentration is simply realted to the increasing temperature since the “little ice age” (LIA), rahter than a jamming up from human sources (in which case a depleation of the sinks would make little sense, the oceans are almost buttomless).
__
All the best regards,
LoN
Philip_B (00:16:09) :
“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)”
The trouble with this argument is that it reminds me of a comment by Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace) when he came to his senses —
“… one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is this romanticisation of peasant life; and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world.”
Your assumption, Philip, is that humanity is not part of nature. CO2 represents a minuscule percentage of the atmosphere and nature has no trouble coping with that and human contributions are a minuscule percentage of that minuscule percentage. Why do you assume that nature has any difficulty coping with that bit?
It is only the “modern environmental movement” — which itself is only a minuscule percentage of the whole of humanity — that persists in seeing humanity as a problem. I don’t agree with them. Why should I?
I don’t think that the “skeptics” or the “warmers” know for sure what will happen in the next five years but we should find out who’s right sometime around 2016. Until then patience is a virtue.
Perhaps – but we see little patience from those who would tear apart our economy on the basis of predictions that have (to be charitable) not yet been proven true.
edward (07:22:55) :
Yes, it does: click
The average peer reviewed study shows that CO2 is reabsorbed in less than ten years. Compare all those studies with the opinion of the IPCC.
Dan Olner (03:53:27) :
The video makes some pretty absurd statements. One is that the re-inforcing of warming coming out of a glacial period is from the greenhouse effects of CO2. Have you ever considered the re-inforcement comes from less snow and ice cover? What the ice cores show is that CO2 increases with temperature, but that doesn’t mean its re-inforcing temperature rise. That’s the unproven leap that Hansen, the IPCC and others have taken.
Another red flag is that when the issue that CO2 followed temperature coming out of glacial periods came to light, the AGW crowd quickly commissioned additional studies with obvious predermined objectives.
The picture of the cooling tower shows how the media twists the minds of the uninformed. There are no emissions from the towers, but we can see the warmed water but not the normal humidity around us, so it must bad?
“Human emissions rise 2 percent despite global financial crisis.”
I call shennanigans. Frankly, this number does not seem possible, and since it is all based on estimation of consumption I tend to believe that 2-percent is well within the noise.
John F. Hultquist (21:57:47) :
CSIRO’s Dr Pep Canadell’s statement appears to disagree with this:
Ditto.
Rob Vermeulen (23:32:53) :
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.
I suggest you go to Leif Svalgaard’s homepage and look at the graphically illustrated relationship between temperatures and [CO2] under the listing “CET and CO2 past increases”. You will notice both positive and negative trends from different time periods indicating a 0.000% correlation between the two. You can plug in numbers from the USA and will only get a highly negative correlation since temperatures in the USA are on a negative trend while CO2 is increasing. After doing what I ask, you may then repost your rubbish.
edward (07:22:55) :
It’s very possible that we should be experiencing very cold temps now but that the extra CO2 is preventing that. It’s possible that the next upswing in temps will begin to become extreme with temp anomalies +1.0 or greater.
It’s also possible pigs could sprout wings. No, sorry, but the extra C02 is doing very little to affect climate, but it is doing a good job of increasing the rates of plant growth. And that’s a good thing, right? More food for us? Or, is that bad, because that only encourages us evil humans to reproduce even more, causing further planetary destruction?
“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”
You may be underestimating the degree of fanaticism among true believers. I could envision the White House burried under a glacier and the warmers still protesting global warming. Noble prize winner Al Gore said its getting warmer so it must be true.
David
It’s going to be really warm on this planet if we tap the geothermal heat potential a mile or two down. According to Nobel Genius Professor Gore there will be fountains of million degree heat boiling away our atmosphere once we hit the two mile marker.
Shiny
Ed
Bruce
I appreciate the attempt at humor but there is no scientific basis that allow for a pig spontaneously sprout wings. There is however, sufficient scientific basis to believe that increased levels of CO2 does increase temperatures. That increase may be limited to between +.4C-1.0C.
I do not believe there is a credible scientist in the world that will disagree with the above statement. The primary disagreement between skeptics and warmers is whether the feedback from clouds will amplify or dampen the effect of increased CO2.
If you can name a credible scientist that disagrees with the above I’d be interested in finding out who that is. Lindzen, Christy and Spencer would not be one of them.
Shiny
Ed
Dan Olner (03:53:27) : Purakanui (00:14:22) : “Equally, temperatures go up and so does CO2. Now, which causes which? The ice cores suggest an answer.”
Straw man: no-one ever suggested the ice core causal link was so direct. This nice little film actually quotes the relevant bits from the paper.
Dan Olner that film is actually a crock. If you see the ice core record that there is a causal link is obvious, as Al Gore pointed out. But he suggested the rising CO2 causes the temperature rise whereas since temperature rises AND FALLS (dont forget that) first and then CO2 follows after a lag clearly shows that CO2 cannot be the cause but is actually the effect of the temperature rise.
It was not a driver of the climate of the past, though now claimed to be a driver by the AGW hypothesis.
You say ” This nice little film actually quotes the relevant bits from the paper.”
WHICH PAPER?
The film starts off with J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton’s paper. But then it goes on to quote Hansen’s paper and then Caillon et als paper, which is the one that states that “.. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the present day and future climate.”
And then he goes onto ask- can anything be clearer as though he was talking about the original paper on orbital forcing.
The Hays et al paper says: “A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next several thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
In orbital forcing of the 3 influences on global temperatures the influence of eccentricity seems to be the weakest but it has the greatest effect in that all the past 8 ice ages have followed that periodicity. About this the paper says “Unlike the correlations between climate and the higher-frequency orbital variations (which can be explained on the assumption that the climate system responds linearly to orbital
forcing), an explanation of the correlation between climate and eccentricity probably REQUIRES AN ASSUMPTION OF NONLINEARITY.” (emphasis mine) –
Translation – we do not have a clue why the eccentricity seems to be responsible for the ice ages but it does and it outweighs the much greater influences of precession and tilt of the axis. One explanation offered is that the Earth enters a disk of interplanetary dust every 100,000 years which causes the ice ages.
The take home message is this – There is no danger of runaway global warming. It has never happened in the past with far greater levels of CO2. CO2 is not a driver of the climate.
The earth tends towards cooling and ice ages, WHICH IS THE PHASE WE ARE SLOWLY ENTERING NOW, and warm periods are brief interludes or anomalies which we should be grateful for.
Laws of Nature
Your argument is flawed. CO2 levels have consistently been increasing 1-2PPM per years since they started taking measurements in the 1950’s regardless of the swings in global temps.
Biomass has increased it’s uptake of CO2 but you cannot make the argument that the linear increase in CO2 is due to outgasssing from warming oceans. The oceans have not even been warming the last 5-6 years.
Shiny
Ed
John Phillips (08:40:54) : What the ice cores show is that CO2 increases with temperature, but that doesn’t mean its re-inforcing temperature rise. That’s the unproven leap that Hansen, the IPCC and others have taken.
Straightforward spectroscopy shows that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. This is not an ‘unproven leap’ and isn’t controversial. More CO2 means more warming. What is your proposal for a mechanism which would completely neutralise the greenhouse effect of that increasing CO2?
Edward,
The climate scientists cannot refute the basic laws of process control – and those dictate that CO2 is not the cause of global temperature changes.
The complete disconnect between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures is no surprise to process control engineers, some of whom have PhDs and decades of experience in the field.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
edward (09:50:50) :
ARGO chart of ocean cooling: click
Amount of natural CO2 emitted by the planet vs CO2 emitted by human activities: click
They need to falsify the hypothesis that the planet’s natural CO2 emissions are at least partly coincidental with the rise of modern society… If they can.
Icarius, right you are. I should have said it has not been proven CO2 is a “significant” warming reinforcement factor.
Leone (02:00:45) :
Here it is:
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#CO2%20and%20HadCRUT3%20diagram
Clearly, there is not a correlation between CO2 and temperature, as the IPCC insists.
Spend some time a climate4you. It’s a good site.
Impending Ice Age, Lava Age or just plain Age of Stupid.
Chicken Little a la Copenhagen.
How the West was Lost.
Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao as the Dirty Harry Brothers. Go ahead, make our day. Your AGW is real, now run along and sacrifice your economies to Gaia. You first.
Here seems to be a very significant paper, which may require a separate post in its own right :
“Did glacials start with global warming? ”
Abstract
Correlation of paleoclimatic evidence with orbital changes shows that the build-up of polar ice accelerated when low obliquity coincided with perihelion in Northern Hemisphere winter. Under low obliquity the insolation was channeled to the tropics at the expense of both polar caps. As perihelion moved from winter solstice toward spring equinox, the solar beam in astronomic winter and spring became stronger than in summer and autumn. This orbital configuration under climate conditions like today would lead to warming of tropical oceans but cooling of the polar regions. The areally weighted global mean surface temperature, which is dominated by the low latitudes, would increase. Consequently, during the first millennia, the early glacial ice build-up was most likely accompanied by global warming. It was the associated increase of meridional insolation and temperature gradients, which were instrumental in the transition to a glacial.
A significant part of the current global warming is due to the gradual temperature increase of the tropical oceans. As the changing orbital configuration today resembles that of the last interglacial/glacial transition, the warming is likely to have a natural component.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4G1WYBT-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1099275843&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5368e9358e893dfc0b75fd76cff0c97d
“Human emissions rise 2 percent despite global financial crisis”
Could this be adding credence to the theory that the recent rise in CO2 is due to the Medieval Warm Period as suggested by the apparent temp/CO2 lag in the Vostock Ice Core data?
The heading on the article say’s “C02 still going up but temperatures not following the same trend”.
It then concentrates on rises and some falls in C02 due to the recession.
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious in the graph.
Temps have gone down and flattened since 1998 but C02 has risen.
Clearly the connection is at least questionable or not there at all.
Common sense?
I may have missed this in past postings, but here goes. A lot of credence has been given to the accuracy of the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. I am certain I will be corrected if I am mistaken (and would expect nothing less from everyone that frequents this site), but is Mauna Loa not a dormant volcano? As such, would not the existing vent structures on the flanks of the volcano emit CO2? What assurances as far as siting the measuring devices was performed during the intial construction phase (so as to not measure the local CO2 emissions vs. the ambient “global” air concentrations)? Where are the “control” CO2 measuring devices situated, either nearby Mauna Loa, or elsewhere on the earth to verify that measurements obtained at Mauna Loa are indeed “global”? I may be rehashing an old issue that more learned souls may already have retained in their craniums, but each time I read of the mountaintop CO2 measurements this issue arises in my mind. Thanks for any feedback.
MCR
Icarus (10:01:16) :
Increasing CO2 leads to higher temperature, higher temperature leads to greater water vapor content, higher vapor content and heat leads to movement of warmer/moister air to higher regions of atmosphere where air cools, precipitating water vapor out of air and net loss of heat to space.
All the increased CO2 does is increase the rates of precipitation, which increases rate of heat radiating into space.
Net result: equilibrium of heat content in atmosphere.
Something along those lines.
Your CO2 increase is a positive forcing of heat; precipitation of water vapor out of the atmosphere is a negative forcing. Don’t forget, the spectroscopic analysis you refer to indicates water vapor is the single most important greenhouse gas. Yet, there is a feedback mechanism maintaining a balance of moisture in the atmosphere. This is why there is no runaway greenhouse heating due to increases in water vapor.
“The current growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP)…anthropogenic emissions growth will resume when the economy recovers unless the global effort to reduce emissions from human activity is accelerated.”
It seems to me they have come right out and said what they meant. The economy is recovering, and something must be done to stop it. And what is the benchmark of global atmospheric co2 concentrations they are using against our economy and standard of living?
“global atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached 385 parts per million – 38 per cent above pre-industrial levels.”
Icarus (10:01:16) :
John Phillips (08:40:54) : What the ice cores show is that CO2 increases with temperature, but that doesn’t mean its re-inforcing temperature rise. That’s the unproven leap that Hansen, the IPCC and others have taken.
Straightforward spectroscopy shows that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. This is not an ‘unproven leap’ and isn’t controversial. More CO2 means more warming. What is your proposal for a mechanism which would completely neutralise the greenhouse effect of that increasing CO2?
Tim Clark (09:03:26) :
I suggest you go to Leif Svalgaard’s homepage and look at the graphically illustrated relationship between temperatures and [CO2] under the listing “CET and CO2 past increases”. You will notice both positive and negative trends from different time periods indicating a 0.000% correlation between the two. You can plug in numbers from the USA and will only get a highly negative correlation since temperatures in the USA are on a negative trend while CO2 is increasing. After doing what I ask, you may then repost your rubbish.
“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.”
Interesting. Here are growth rates of GDP and CO2 (as measured in Mauna Loa.)
Year GDP CO2
2000 3 1.74
2001 4.8 1.59
2002 2.2 2.56
2003 2.7 2.29
2004 3.8 1.56
2005 4.9 2.55
2006 4.7 1.69
2007 5.3 2.17
2008 5.2 1.66
2009 3.1
So, if
(1) the growth rate of CO2 emissions is closely linked to the growth of GDP
and
(2) the growth rate of of CO2 in the atmosphere is not correlated to the growth of GDP –
what does that say about the linkage of the growth rate of CO2 emissions and the growth rate of CO2 content in the atmosphere?
Philip_B (00:16:09) :
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.
I would concede without reservation that they do, as they must. The question is, by how much?
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)
But, that is no accident. They came to balance because that is where the negative feedback balanced the natural forcing. There is no balance in nature (or in human affairs) without opposing forces. As the forcing increases, so does the feedback. It has to, or there never would have been a balance established in the first place.
To the degree that the system may be linearized about the natural equilibrium, the increase in the output variable is proportional to the increase in the forcing input. Let U be the level of the output, be it temperature, CO2 concentration, whatever, and F be the forcing, composed of natural forcing Fn and anthropogenic forcing Fa, such that F = Fn + Fa. The change in U due to Fa is dU, specified by dU = K*Fa, where K is the sensitivity factor. Define Ko as U/Fn, being the gain of the system about the linear set point.
To date, we know Fa <= 0.04*Fn. Actually, it is more like Fa <= 0.01*Fn, but nevermind. The fractional change in U is dU/U = K*Fa/(Ko*Fn) = 0.17/0.04 = 4.25. The sensitivity to any added CO2 has to be greater than 4 times the average response to the 83% of naturally produced carbon. Actually, 17 times, if you accept Fa <= 0.01*Fn.
That is a very large amplification factor, which should compel large swings in CO2 content in the historical record due to variations in CO2 production. I just don't see it.
Philip_B (00:37:34) :
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.
I’d like to see you back your statements up. I pretty much know where your number comes from, and all I would say is don’t use a number that you don’t understand. Good advice for anyont. In my work as a steel marketing analyst for a B2B company that sells into the steel industry globally, there has been very little in the way of “production transfer” since Kyoto. There has been a large boom in Chinese capacity, but the fact is that very little of this steel is dedicated to exports, maybe 10% of capacity for raw steel and another 5-10% for finished goods.
The fact is, China’s infrastructure development is using up most of their new steel capacity. Also, a little known facts about the US Steel Industry. Did you know that, on average, domestic steel production has been on the rise since the early 80s when the Japanese exports canabalized ~30% of our market. And truthfully had the US steel industry not been grossly mismanaged, that never would have happened, but that is a subject for a book and not web posts.
As far as taking 50% more energy to produce Steel in China vs. Germany, Japan, etc… let’s seperate fact from fiction. This is by and large NOT a product of them being less efficient. The primary reason it takes more energy has to do with the modes of production required, rather than the actual inefficiency of Chinese steel production. There is a natural production equilibrium point for each economy for primary vs. secondary steel.
In the US roughly 60% of our steel is recycled/secondary steel because we are no longer a developing nation. This is roughly the same fraction as the rest of the western world. China has the opposite situation. Only 20-30% of their steel is recycled. This is not because they are slackers when it comes to recycling, but rather because their economy is growing faster than their sources of scrap steel.
This trend will continue until their infrastructure is fully/mostly developed. Because China demands a higher percentage of primary steel, 70-80% of their production requires iron-making first, which is the most carbon intensive portion of the integrated steel-making process (75% of the emissions if I am remembering right.) BTW… if you want to see the US (or any other country) steel emission numbers tank, make us China’s primary source of steel. Then our production of primary vs secondary steel would be much closer to China’s, which would bring our emissions in line with where China is today.
If you want to get into a debate as to why steel production is in China vs. other countries in the world, we can have that debate, but it mainly boils down to a several reasons. First, the required capital investment for a greenfield steel site in China is roughly half of what it is in a developed nation. This would be true with or without Kyoto. Second, they produce more iron ore and coal than any other country. Production is located close to resources (the Carnegie model.) Third, that’s where the steel is being used. If you are going to build a new production facility, are you going to build it where your customer is, or are you going to build it in some non-sensical location like the US which has no need for additional primary steel capacity and a structural shortage of raw materials to meet the demand of a new steel plant?
Even if you could reduce the cost of building in the rest of the world to the Chinese costs, you still would have relatively little development in the US, Japan, Germany, etc… Why? Because you would build in China, Australia, Brazil, Russia, India and the Ukraine. These countries are where roughly 75% of the world’s iron ore is mined, not to mention coal as well. Since iron ore is roughly 35% Oxygen by weight, you would locate close to ore, coal or both to reduce overall freight charges, all other things being equal.
To lay blame at the feet of Kyoto, a non-binding treaty with 0 teeth, is ignorance at best and sound bite politics at worst. Take the blinders off, read real accounts of different industries development and don’t believe all the tripe spewed forth by talking heads, unless of course the head has done something else meaninfgul in its career other than talking, which many of them haven’t.
Bart (11:36:11) :
Let me clean that up a little. Since 1960, the change dU/U = 0.17. Thus, dU/U = K*Fa/(Ko*Fn) = 0.17/0.04 = 4.25.
Good grief. dU/U = K*Fa/(Ko*Fn) = 4.25. OK, now it fits in with the rest.
Something strange seems to be happening. Bits of my message are falling out.
I know what it is. Those inequality signs are being picked up as html tags.
The end result is K/Ko is greater than or equal to 4.25. Or 17 for the lower amount of anthropogenic forcing.
I thought I was losing my marbles there for a while.
Seth Borenstein is at it again:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010287025_apscicarbonpollution.html
includes reference to a paper published in Nature Geoscienceby US DOE Oak Ridge National Lab that contains interesting data of the amount of US emissions reduction compared with other major emitters globally. As usual Borenstein spins and tortures the meaning of the data to limit the damage it does to upcoming negotiations in Copenhagen.
“According to the study, the fossil fuel emissions increase was smaller than normal for this decade. Annual global pollution growth has averaged 3.6 percent. This year, scientists are forecasting a nearly 3 percent reduction, despite China because of the massive economic slowdown in most of the world and in the United States.”
“The U.S. is still the biggest per capita major producer of man-made greenhouse gases, spewing about 20 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year. The world average is 5.3 tons and China is at 5.8 tons.”
“Last year, the U.S. emissions fell by 3 percent, a reduction of nearly 192 million tons of carbon dioxide. Overall European Union emissions dropped by 1 percent. The U.S. is still the No. 2 biggest carbon polluter overall, emitting more than the next four largest polluting countries combined: India, Russia, Japan and Germany. China has been No. 1, since pushing past the United States in 2006.”
The data from 2007 to 2008 in a table contained in the print version of the article shows CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels:
“Largest emissions decrease:
US -192; EU (27 nations) -43; Australia -20; Spain -19; Italy -10; Finland -7; UK -7; Germany -7′ Denmark -3 Czech Rep -3 (units are in millions of tons).”
“Largest emissions increases:
China +490; India +134; Russia +32; Saudi Arabia +32; Brazil +29; South Africa +22; South Korea +19; Indonesia +19; Iran =15; Poland +10.”
My reading of this is that the US has voluntarily reduced emissions by 40% more than the combined nations sign have under ETS and Kyoto quotas.
Jack Simmons (11:04:39) : Increasing CO2 leads to higher temperature, higher temperature leads to greater water vapor content, higher vapor content and heat leads to movement of warmer/moister air to higher regions of atmosphere where air cools, precipitating water vapor out of air and net loss of heat to space.
All the increased CO2 does is increase the rates of precipitation, which increases rate of heat radiating into space.
Net result: equilibrium of heat content in atmosphere.
Then the same would have to apply to *any* forcing, including variation in solar irradiance – ice ages and interglacials could never have occurred, and the temperature of the Earth would always have been constant. As we all know, this is not the case.
On the contrary – the palaeoclimate evidence suggests that the Earth is actually rather sensitive to forcings, needing only relatively small changes in forcings to transition between ice ages and interglacials and ice-free states. That’s why the human impact on climate is causing such concern.
Incidentally the increased water vapour content that you cite is a *positive* feedback, since water vapour is a very effective greenhouse gas in its own right.
Maybe those scientists in the 1970’s talking about a new ice age were right and all this CO2 is the only thing keeping us from “The Day After Tomorrow?”
Yeah, right.
L. Bowser
Kudos to Mr. Bowser on a lucid example from a real industry that I also work in. There are plans to build additional Steel plants in India since that is where there is untapped iron ore. Do not expect China and India to slow down their industrial development and per capita CO2 emissions to assuage the environmental guilt of Jim Hansen and Al Gore. Those countries and their citizens want what the USA has, prosperity and cheap energy and they are not going to impose burdens on themselves unless the US or Europe funds it.
The truth of the matter is that India and China will continue to build coal plants and CO2 generating industries until CO2 hits levels well over 450 ppm. You could drive all the electric cars you want in the USA but unless you start building a couple hundred nuke plants there will be nothing to power them if you start shutting down coal plants.
Shiny
Ed
Icarus (13:02:34) :
“Then the same would have to apply to *any* forcing, including variation in solar irradiance…”
Possibly, but not necessarily. It depends on where the forcing comes into the loop, and these two actions are different, with CO2 playing a supporting role, i.e., CO2 does not create heat independently, it merely traps a greater portion of the solar irradiance than would otherwise be the case.
Quote of the Week, by Sam the Skeptic:
“Your assumption, Philip, is that humanity is not part of nature”.
Cheers,
Neil
Bart (14:58:41) :
Icarus (13:02:34) :
“Then the same would have to apply to *any* forcing,
including variation in solar irradiance…”
Possibly, but not necessarily. It depends on where the forcing comes into the loop, and these two actions are different, with CO2 playing a supporting role, i.e., CO2 does not create heat independently, it merely traps a greater portion of the solar irradiance than would otherwise be the case.
Jack’s claim started with “Increasing CO2 leads to higher temperature…” and drew a conclusion based on that higher temperature. If he’s right then it makes no difference what causes the higher temperature. Of course there are differences in the effect of increasing greenhouse gases vs. increasing solar irradiance (which is one of the reasons we know that the current global warming is due to human activity) but there’s no such subtlety in Jack’s claim. Perhaps *you* could try to explain why higher global temperature from the greenhouse effect might be negated by precipitation, whereas higher global temperature from solar irradiance might not.
Icarus (10:01:16) : John Phillips (08:40:54) : What the ice cores show is that CO2 increases with temperature, but that doesn’t mean its re-inforcing temperature rise. That’s the unproven leap that Hansen, the IPCC and others have taken.
Straightforward spectroscopy shows that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. This is not an ‘unproven leap’ and isn’t controversial. More CO2 means more warming. What is your proposal for a mechanism which would completely neutralise the greenhouse effect of that increasing CO2?
Answer me one question Icarus. When the Earth regularly and inevitably cools into an ice-age, or glacial period if you wish, it does so after temperatures have been rising AND CO2 has been increasing and providing “more warming”, according to you. This has happened like clockwork every 100,000 years as per the ice core records.
What is the mechanism that completely neutralises the greenhouse effect of that increasing CO2 when this happens?
It is not any sudden or dramatic change in orbital configuration if thats what you are going to fall back on. The orbital configuration and any corresponding “forcing” is extremely gradual, yet it is more than adequate to not only completely neutralise the greenhouse effect of that increasing CO2 but rather increasing CO2 seems to be an impotent follower and not a driver of the climate.
The paper I referred to (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4G1WYBT-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1099275843&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5368e9358e893dfc0b75fd76cff0c97d) points out that such conditions (which favour a descent to glaciation) are present today and in the last glaciation(s) they were preceded by global warming – coincidentally which has also happened in the last century.
Dear edward (09:50:50) ,
this sounds like you would know/predict what happens on the border between near surface and deep sea water?
Or perhaps you can explain the 00 year lag between temperature and CO2 seen in ice cores . .wait a minute, did we have a global warm time just abut 800 years ago!?
All the best regards,
LoN
Laws of Nature
Your argument is flawed. CO2 levels have consistently been increasing 1-2PPM per years since they started taking measurements in the 1950’s regardless of the swings in global temps.
Biomass has increased it’s uptake of CO2 but you cannot make the argument that the linear increase in CO2 is due to outgasssing from warming oceans. The oceans have not even been warming the last 5-6 years.
Shiny
Ed
Anthony, you said this:
by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group, the Global Carbon Project (GCP)
this is what these alarmists have just reported!
“The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html
Icarus wrote
”
Jack’s claim started with “Increasing CO2 leads to higher temperature…” and drew a conclusion based on that higher temperature. If he’s right then it makes no difference what causes the higher temperature. Of course there are differences in the effect of increasing greenhouse gases vs. increasing solar irradiance (which is one of the reasons we know that the current global warming is due to human activity) but there’s no such subtlety in Jack’s claim. Perhaps *you* could try to explain why higher global temperature from the greenhouse effect might be negated by precipitation, whereas higher global temperature from solar irradiance might not.
”
Perhaps you might like to explain why the NH tends to be warmer than the SH.
janama (16:52:36) : by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group, the Global Carbon Project (GCP) this is what these alarmists have just reported!
“The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century”
Not only that but also “Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.”
Those swines should be sent to Siberia (or Alaska) now! The whole of Russia is a sea of white from Moscow to the pacific. Sure they believe in Global warming and how bad it will be.
Have a look at the pictures of the snow cover of the northern hemisphere and Europe and Asia today over here: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/
CO2 is a colorless odorless gas. Well I couldn’t smell anything in Roy’s picture; but I sure as heck could see something coming out of those cooling towers, and what I could see sure wasn’t any CO2. I would guess it was water in either droplet (liquid) or solid form; aka clouds.
So why does CO2 get all the flak, when it clearly is H2O that is polluting the atmosphere ?
Just like the warmists focus on Arctic sea ice for their apocalyptic predictions, I wonder if any analysis has been done on the snow cover of the Northern hemisphere? This would be just as important for the albedo as sea ice.
I had a look at the snow cover for the 18th of Nov 2008, 18/11/2007 and 18/11/2005. The snow cover today is way more than those previous years. A little less in the US and Canada but way more in Asia, China, Mongolia, central Asia.
I wonder if someone could make a chart or animation to see the position.
“”” Paddy (12:59:31) :
Seth Borenstein is at it again:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010287025_apscicarbonpollution.html
includes reference to a paper published in Nature Geoscienceby US DOE Oak Ridge National Lab that contains interesting data of the amount of US emissions reduction compared with other major emitters globally. As usual Borenstein spins and tortures the meaning of the data to limit the damage it does to upcoming negotiations in Copenhagen.
“According to the study, the fossil fuel emissions increase was smaller than normal for this decade. Annual global pollution growth has averaged 3.6 percent. This year, scientists are forecasting a nearly 3 percent reduction, despite China because of the massive economic slowdown in most of the world and in the United States.”
“The U.S. is still the biggest per capita major producer of man-made greenhouse gases, spewing about 20 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year. The world average is 5.3 tons and China is at 5.8 tons.” “””
Well that ain’t true; not nearly !
——————————————————————————–
Science 16 October 1998:
Vol. 282. no. 5388, pp. 442 – 446
DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5388.442
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi, P. Tans
So google up this paper, and then tell me again that the USA is the biggest emitter of carbon on the planet; when in fact we are the ONLY land based carbon sink on the planet (large one).
I’ll gladly accept apologies from all of those other world polluters.
I have no idea what all that junque is or where it caem from.
Maybe Chasmod, can squish that long list for me.
George
Icarus (13:02:34) :
You asked what mechanism might mitigate the increase in CO2 we have seen in the industrial age. I responded with the notion there would be increased release of heat due to the normal precipitation of water from the atmosphere.
Increased heat retention from CO2 will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere and more heat, leading to more precipitation and more heat released into space. Hence, an automatic feedback mechanism maintaining an equilibrium of total heat content for the planet.
No runaway heating.
As I said, an increase in water vapor leads to more precipitation which leads to more cooling.
This whole debate centers on the sensitivity of the climate to forcings.
The IPCC has assumed the earth is very sensitive to forcings, including the forcing of CO2 increases.
You appeal to what have been historic forcings in the past. Well, I guess nature has her way with the climate, with or without mankind. We are just along for the ride.
CO2 is not forcing anything. Please see the chart at http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#CO2%20and%20HadCRUT3%20diagram.
Some process overcame the greenhouse effect of CO2 from 1958 to sometime after the mid-70s. Again, some process has overcome the CO2 greenhouse effect from 2001 to the present.
During the early 70s we were being told mankind was causing a net cooling of the planet, including one of Obama’s advisors. This was cooling alarmism. Now we are hearing from literally the same people about a warming crisis.
You asked for some mechanism that could overcome CO2 greenhouse warming. I made a suggestion. No doubt this suggestion is far too simplistic to really account for the natural processes mitigating against the increases in CO2.
But there is no doubt, SOMETHING is preventing the greenhouse effect of CO2 from driving the climate.
Again, look at the chart referred to above and explain why you believe increasing CO2 levels leads to increasing global temperatures.
Learn to read what the instruments are telling us.
Icarus (13:02:34) :
By the way Icarus, my reasoning above would not apply to “any” forcing.
Again you asked specifically about the forcing due to increased CO2 levels. That is what I was responding to.
Obviously, the water cycle here on earth would not overcome the forcing of the sun going super Nova. Or several other possible forcings.
It wasn’t enough to overcome the forcings resulting in the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warming, or the Little Ice Age.
By the way, those were not due to CO2 levels. They were due to something quite natural.
Icarus (15:34:46) :
“Perhaps *you* could try to explain why higher global temperature from the greenhouse effect might be negated by precipitation, whereas higher global temperature from solar irradiance might not.”
Perhaps both might be. Solar irradiance has been pretty high in recent history, after all. Maybe this is about as hot as it gets.
Even if it were possible to measure the mean global temperature, it is meaningless
How many times do I have to say this, without knowing even local humidity, a temperature reading has no validity as to the local energy.
Apply that to the globe & maybe you’ll see what I mean.
DaveE.
“DaveE (21:01:23) :
Even if it were possible to measure the mean global temperature, it is meaningless
How many times do I have to say this, without knowing even local humidity, a temperature reading has no validity as to the local energy.
Apply that to the globe & maybe you’ll see what I mean.
DaveE.”
Matters not! Look at how many people seem to think the recent film 2012 is real? I mean, it makes me think of “The War of The Worlds” broadcast by H.G. Wells in 1938. Are Yanks *THAT* stupid?
Icarus
Do you accept the generally discussed concept that co2 doubling could cause around only 1 deg C warming without water vapor content?
pardon me,
that should read increased water vapor absorption due to that higher temperature?
No matter what ‘side’ you’re on I think EVERY GRAPH THAT USES ANOMALIES should state what the baseline represents.
It should be stated ON THE GRAPH not in a caption or accompanying text.
DaveE (21:01:23) : Even if it were possible to measure the mean global temperature, it is meaningless
How many times do I have to say this, without knowing even local humidity, a temperature reading has no validity as to the local energy. ..
I’ll have to disagree with you there DaveE. The radiation given off by the Earth could be measured theoretically within a sphere enclosing it – that would be the Earths temperature. I agree it is difficult to measure but perhaps the satellites do a reasonable job.
It is meaningful. The Earths temperature for example is less than that of mars, which is less in turn of Jupiters.
On Earth our temperatures are in fine balance, tending towards being cold. When we are cooler we descend into the ice ages which are the defining climatic condition of our planet.
Richard:
“I’ll have to disagree with you there DaveE. The radiation given off by the Earth could be measured theoretically within a sphere enclosing it – that would be the Earths temperature.”
I wonder if DaveE meant that temperature on its own, without the context of the mass and specific heat capacity of the substance bearing the temperature is meaningless? Without knowing that we don’t know the amount of heat this temperature represents. Maybe humidity affects the mass and specific heat capacity of the air to some extent, although I’m not a meteorologist.
Mass or specific heat are not involved in the measurement of Temperature. It is the measure of kinetic energy of the atoms constituting a body and is a measure of the “hotness” or “coldness” of a body, such as the Earth.
Richard (10:31:53) :
Quite right Richard, which is why it is meaningless. It doesn’t measure the temperature of the Earth, just the atmosphere at a local point, with no reference to the energy contained within.
DaveE.
Query:
Where can one obtain a UAH chart that is NOT a zoom on a scale of 1/10ths of a degree?
For example, y axis where baseline = 0 degrees Celsius?
On such a scale the variation would appear to be nearly a flatline, no?
Posting such charts at such a tiny scale implicitly overstates the issue and plays into the hands of AGW chicken littles.
daneskold,
Maybe this will help: click
Human vs natural CO2 emissions: click
Look close! click
Temp/CO2: click
Why do they measure CO2 from Antarctic ice for the pre-Industrial revolution and from a Volcanic Mountain in Hawai for teh period since the Industrial revolution. We all know volcanos emit CO2 Wht not use sam-ple from the same spot? It seems a little like comparing apples to oranges!