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
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.