Here’s the latest global temperature plot from UAH:
From Eurekalert: Human emissions rise 2 percent despite global financial crisis
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: Human emissions rise 2 percent despite the global financial crisis.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
Despite the economic effects of the global financial crisis (GFC), carbon dioxide emissions from human activities rose 2 per cent in 2008 to an all-time high of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, according to a paper published today in Nature Geoscience.
The paper – by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group, the Global Carbon Project (GCP) – says rising emissions from fossil fuels last year were caused mainly by increased use of coal but there were minor decreases in emissions from oil and deforestation.
“The current growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP),” said one of the paper’s lead authors, CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach.
“CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are estimated to have increased 41 per cent above 1990 levels with emissions continuing to track close to the worst-case scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“There will be a small downturn in emissions because of the GFC, but anthropogenic emissions growth will resume when the economy recovers unless the global effort to reduce emissions from human activity is accelerated.”
The GCP estimates that the growth in emissions from developing countries increased in part due to the production of manufactured goods consumed in developed countries. In China alone, 50 per cent of the growth in emissions from 2002 to 2005 was attributed to the country’s export industries.
According to the GCP’s findings, atmospheric CO2 growth was about four billion metric tonnes of carbon in 2008 and global atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached 385 parts per million – 38 per cent above pre-industrial levels.
According to co-author and GCP Executive Director, CSIRO’s Dr Pep Canadell, the findings also indicate that natural carbon sinks, which play an important role in buffering the impact of rising emissions from human activity, have not been able to keep pace with rising CO2 levels.
“On average only 45 per cent of each year’s emissions remain in the atmosphere,” Dr Canadell said.
“The remaining 55 per cent is absorbed by land and ocean sinks.
“However, CO2 sinks have not kept pace with rapidly increasing emissions, as the fraction of emissions remaining in the atmosphere has increased over the past 50 years. This is of concern as it indicates the vulnerability of the sinks to increasing emissions and climate change, making natural sinks less efficient ‘cleaners’ of human carbon pollution.”
More than 30 experts from major international climate research institutions contributed to the GCP’s annual Global Carbon Budget report – now considered a primary reference on the human effects on atmospheric CO2 for governments and policy-makers around the world.
Media Note:
Dr Raupach will be available to speak to the media at a briefing at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney at 10.30am today.
For details go to: www.aussmc.org or contact Imogen Jubb on 0417 258 020.
Image available at: http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/mediarelease/mr09-206.html
Further Information:
Dr Michael Raupach, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research
Ph: +61 2 6246 5573
Ph: +61 408 020 952
Dr Pep Canadell, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research
Further information available at: www.globalcarbonproject.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?