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.
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!