From the University of Exeter, this press release below and not a peep in it about the El Niño earlier this year that would have helped to degassify CO2 from the warmer portions of the Pacific ocean. But hey, its got a connection to UEA, so we know it’s quality work, right?
Global CO2 emissions back on the rise in 2010
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming – show no sign of abating and may reach record levels in 2010, according to a study led by the University of Exeter (UK).
The study, which also involved the University of East Anglia (UK) and other global institutions, is part of the annual carbon budget update by the Global Carbon Project.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience, the authors found that despite the major financial crisis that hit the world last year, global CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel in 2009 were only 1.3 per cent below the record 2008 figures. This is less than half the drop predicted a year ago.
The global financial crisis severely affected western economies, leading to large reductions in CO2 emissions. For example, UK emissions were 8.6% lower in 2009 than in 2008. Similar figures apply to USA, Japan, France, Germany, and most other industrialised nations.
However, emerging economies had a strong economic performance despite the financial crisis, and recorded substantial increases in CO2 emissions (e.g. China +8 per cent, India +6.2 per cent).
Professor Pierre Friedlingstein, lead author of the research, said: “The 2009 drop in CO2 emissions is less than half that anticipated a year ago. This is because the drop in world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was less than anticipated and the carbon intensity of world GDP, which is the amount of CO2 released per unit of GDP, improved by only 0.7 per cent in 2009 – well below its long-term average of 1.7% per year.”
The poor improvements in carbon intensity were caused by an increased share of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions produced by emerging economies with a relatively high carbon intensity, and an increasing reliance on coal.
The study projects that if economic growth proceeds as expected, global fossil fuel emissions will increase by more than 3% in 2010, approaching the high emissions growth rates observed through 2000 to 2008.
The study also found that global CO2 emissions from deforestation have decreased by over 25% since 2000 compared to the 1990s, mainly because of reduced CO2 emissions from tropical deforestation.
“For the first time, forest expansion in temperate latitudes has overcompensated deforestation emissions and caused a small net sink of CO2 outside the tropics”, says Professor Corinne Le Quéré, from the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, and author of the study. “We could be seeing the first signs of net CO2 sequestration in the forest sector outside the tropics”, she adds.
Editors’ notes
The Global Carbon Project
The Global Carbon Project was formed to assist the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base supporting policy debate and action to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The project is working towards this through a shared partnership between the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and Diversitas. This partnership constitutes the Earth Systems Science Partnership (ESSP).
More information available at: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The faint cheering you are hearing while reading this report is from the vegetation all around the world! 🙂
Bill
P Wilson says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:51 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:32 am
With El Nino in 2010 certainly, more heat evaporates and so more cloud cover and more rain.
Indeed, but as the higher ocean temperatures emit more CO2, that enhances the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as result of the emissions. Thus the opposite of what Ian W expects from more clouds/rain…
Gee, SteveE. I’d never heard that before. Thanks for bringing it up.
‘…Decreased by 1.3% – and will start to rise again…’
SPECULATION..!
The thing that gets me time and time again – is that none of these people has read Kyoto. That called for a reduction in greenhouse gases expressed as CO2 EQUIVALENT – NOT necessarily CO2 itself. For a start, all us out here in Realityland know perfectly well that the biggest greenhouse gas of the lot is water vapour – which of course is completely ignored by the climate brigade, and the politicos because you can’t tax it…
All of this is coincidental anyway – because the whole ‘religion’ is now aimed at ‘wealth distribution’ (watch for the tone of communiques from Cancun) and has got precious little to do with climate change, let alone CO2…
The vast majority of those fanatics will never suffer “self-embarassment,” because they irrationally deny and refuse to heed any information that may conflict with their chosen belief and infinite faith in the AGW religion.
SteveE says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:18 am
“…..An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2…..”
__________________________________________________________
As Anthony states “missing the big picture”
1. Nature has been taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and burying since plants evolved. This is backed up by
1A. Coal Deposits
1B. Hydrates in the oceans
1C. Higher CO2 measurements, “in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm” http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
2. Plants reaction to the reduction in CO2 has been the evolution of a type of plant that can withstand lower levels of CO2. This new group of plants evolved several million years ago specifically to cope with lower levels of CO2. They developed a type of photosynthesis called C4 which permits greater water efficiency and the ability to photosynthize at greatly reduced CO2 levels. Just do a Wiki on ‘C4 photosynthesis’. An even better adaption called CAM was evolved by plants like cacti seen living in arid areas.
What this means is as CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 ppm – will cease to grow or produce. Below 200 pm CO2 trees starve. This is from a site that has been removed since it refutes the Ice Core data: http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html
The stomata research also totally destroys the ice core data and thereby the entire IPCC assessment reports. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf
http://www.bio.uu.nl/~palaeo/people/Rike/index.html
Speaking of carbon dioxide as plant food there is something else often missing in discussions of CO2 concentration. That is CO2 and its relation to altitude. Humans have trouble breathing near the top of Mount Everest even though the “concentration” of oxygen in parts per million is the same as at sea level. This is because the total density of the air is less so the actual amount of oxygen available per cubic meter is also less. The same holds true for carbon dioxide. Air density at 1000 meters altitude is about ninety percent of its sea level value, and crops grown at that altitude have access to ninety percent of the CO2 at sea level despite the fact that the “concentration” as usually given is the same. Half of the land surface of the earth is about 840 meters above sea level, and the absolute concentration of CO2 there is therefore about ninety percent less.
There is also the response of plants to CO2. Growth and water use is much better at CO2 levels about 1000ppm as seen in commercial greenhouses.
Then there is the fact that adding more CO2 past a certain point has little effect because all the available IR at the specific wavelengths has been absorbed.
CO2 absorption bands vs Earth’s transmission bands
CO2 is Logarithmic Explained
CO2 Bands Saturated, CO2 Cannot Cause any more Global Warming
Rapid atmospheric changes are well known from past reconstructions:
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129389/pdf/pq1902012011.pdf
& http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Late_Holocene_CO2_3000-4300_BP_Jessen_etal_2005.pdf
So a reduction of purchased fuels at the pump did not put much of a dent in the rise, therefor one must contemplate the cause is elsewhere. Real scientists would have owned up to this and wrote a paper suggesting further research is necessary to examine this paradox. You can’t have it both ways. Either stick to your belief that purchased fuel is a proxy for CO2, one that must be verified by actual CO2 measurement, or it is not a proxy because it does not match actual CO2 measurements.
Might I suggest both El Nino gassing and the fact that human population increase continues unabated and uncannily matches the rise in CO2.
Here’s an idea. Turn every inner city empty space into food production. With all that CO2 about, the crop should be quite impressive.
Here in Alabama, USA, we have had an unusually but not record breaking warm Fall. That being said looking at the INSO maps it would appear that we might also be in store for a rather cool if not cold winter. As I look at the below “normal” SST;s for the eastern N. Pacific and the cooling Western N Atlantic and a cooling Gulf of Mexico, I wonder if we might be in for an even cold winter in the southern USA. I remember as a child in the S. E. USA there were plenty of cold temps and -0f was not an oddity. That would roughly corelate to the same time frame in relation to the PDO we are currently enjoying now. That being said it became colder until the late 1970’s. considering the complete approximately 60 year cycle of the PDO we might need to prepare for the deepening cold effect of the climate for the next 20 to 30 years depending on when you start counting from. Perhaps the cooling SST’s will have some effect on the CO2 levels to help out the warmist. For me natural fertilizer is a good thing as it is free. Bring on the CO2 my garden thanks you.
Bill Derryberry
Juraj V. says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:45 am
“…But as your graph shows (and also the “earth shine” project shows), the total outgoing radiation is far more variable than what the changes in GHGs give. Probably due to changes in cloud cover, which are far more important for climate than the changes in GHGs…
The same for more backradiation (measured in Europe): most is from increased water vapour and clouds, not from CO2.”
______________________________________________________________
AHHhhh yes WATER the ten ton elephant in the room that is always ignored by the IPCC et al.
Well, the guys in charge are right about something. There’s a correlation between economic hardship and a decrease in CO2 emissions. I recommend we completely wreck our economies to save the world!
The closed system of human “human” production, and human food production is a myth. Both food production and fuel production/purchase follows a well-known up and down path, neither matching each other. The ONLY match that is highly correlated is human population growth with CO2 growth. This match trumps everything else you can throw at it.
That said, I don’t think the rise in CO2 is any match for weather pattern variation.
Mother earth needs more CO2 to increase vegetation, to augment life, in order to compensate for the proliferation of some CAGW “viruses” who menace her immune system.
Darren Parker says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:49 am
“If the oceans get wamer how can they absorb more co2 – don’t they have to get colder to hold more carbon dioxide? my soft drinks certainly do. So how does that work with the acidification theory?”
_____________________________________________________
Darren, Since when has science and logic had anything to do with the propaganda used to stampede the sheeple into fear so they willingly accept being fleeced yet again?
Steve Keohane says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:23 am
SteveE says: November 22, 2010 at 2:06 am
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.
Not part of the biosphere are we?
————————
CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels aren’t, no.
Did you honestly think they were?
To SteveE:
H2S ain’t CO2. You are comparing apples and oranges. You argument is basically the same as this: “Because oranges are high in vitamin C, apples can prevent scurvy.” It doesn’t make sense. And neither does your argument. You can’t compare two distinct things and claim the effects are the same.
Tim Folkerts says:
November 22, 2010 at 5:03 am
“…..So Robert, are you suggesting that people will continue burning less fuels and will continue producing less CO2? You are predicting the warmist are wrong? Perhaps you are predicting a continued global recession and the Chinese and Indians cutting back on their economic development?
I am not saying warmist are right about all their other conclusions, I’m just saying you do yourself no favors by taking a position against a statement that is almost certainly true –> that people will keep burning more and more fuels as long as those fuels are readily available and that this will continue to raise CO2 levels for at least a few more decades.”
__________________________________________________________
Almost certainly true???
It depends on whether or not regulations shut down the use of the mini and micro nuclear power plants. I for one would love to see one of these in my community. They are also small enough to power ships and possibly trains and thereby cutting transport costs significantly.
A nuclear plant in your garden???
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/a-micro-nuclear-reactor-in-your-garden/1089
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
(SarcOn)One day, much to the horror of many, the Pathetic Greenies are going to come to the logical “End of the Line” conclusion. It may actually be sooner than even I would have thought possible since the West is crumbling and disintegrating faster than anyone could have expected. NOTE: The latest proof is the recent abbamanation of the ObamaNation, invasive body cavity searches for everyone (newborns and up, to include corpses) by TSA ‘Blue Shirt’ Stormtrooper Thugs beginning the day before Thanksgiving in anticipation of the Christmas Holiday travel period and continuing indefinitely thereafter. Ohhhhhhh… yes, that “End of the Line” item — They’re going to finally realize that they can’t convince even a simple Chicago Majority (one more little graveyard ‘vote’ than the other side has) and they’re going to Gas the Planet a’la Sadam to reduce the worthless, lazy, ignorant surplus population– as Dicken’s might say. I have a feeling they may even adopt some of the Talaban’s techniques of friendly persuasion. (SarcOff)
SteveE says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:06 am
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.
=======================================================
So, you’re trying to say that this “natural absorptions” is at a fixed rate and can’t change.
Who in this world told you that, and, more important, why did you believe it?
“Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming …”
Putting aside water vapor, we will do our best to move the conversation to something that we hope to use to destroy the liberty and prosperity of western countries and of the United States in particular. And besides, who wants to write grant proposals to study water vapor? Better ride the CO2 horse for all its worth.
I was watching a National Geographic documentary about effects of super continents on rainfall. I listened in amazement when it described current co2 levels as being extremely low by paleological standards. Not only that, but it went further and suggested that trees were struggling to cope with these low levels, whereas grasses that evolved to deal with it, were becoming the dominant vegetation. They even let slip that future erosion will sequester even more co2.
The climate change censor must have been asleep to let that faux pas slip through.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 22, 2010 at 5:51 am
P Wilson says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:51 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:32 am
With El Nino in 2010 certainly, more heat evaporates and so more cloud cover and more rain.
Indeed, but as the higher ocean temperatures emit more CO2, that enhances the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as result of the emissions. Thus the opposite of what Ian W expects from more clouds/rain…
You miss the point,
There is a balance based on the rate of CO2 dissolving in water in the clouds and being washed out of the atmosphere to the surface and the vapor pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Claims that there is somehow a ‘natural balance’ that knows that only 97% of CO2 is to be dissolved and that the ‘anthropogenic’ CO2 is being kept out of solution are illogical.
Henry’s Law applies. This also means that the relatively monotonic rise in CO2 is far more likely to be due to ocean temperature increases reducing solubility than to anthropogenic output. Otherwise the CO2 records would show drops at times like 1973 when there were drops in fossil fuel usage rather than a steady and continual climb.
SteveE says on November 22, 2010 at 2:06 am
That’s an interesting assertion. How does “nature” distinguish between human emitted CO2 and “naturally” emitted CO2? How does “nature” handle the variability in “naturally” emitted CO2 but cannot handle the increase in human emitted CO2?
I think you are simply another wanking troll.
I can’t believe this. These are scientists!!!
This is just more proof that a substantial amount of CO2 is natural. We actually have a period where industrial production goes down, and CO2 levels go much higher than before the recession hit, and we have a record El Nino. It’s pretty clear this rise is due solely to El Nino.
The crass stupidity of these people, and we fund them with tax payers money to come out with garbage like that.
I despair I really do.
When science is only sharing that which is mutually agreeable and theory is treated as proven fact, then what is being accomplished. How can science progress and prove its worth?
How comforting it must be to only communicate with a narrow comfortable view, excluding objectivity and all other ideas. And how degrading that is to their profession and trust.
As long as the money keeps rolling in, who cares.
Global warming is the golden idol that represents the power of the unproven truth. People should be careful what they worship.
Before worrying about CO2 rise continuing ‘unabated,’ remember that the total rise from the 1945 level (when CO2 emissions began to ‘soar’) is only 0.008% change in the atmosphere! Taken with the physics of CO2 that tell us doubling the atmospheric content of CO2 is only capable of producing less than 0.1 degree rise (recall that water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases and there is no evidence that it is rising). Why are we not worrying far more about global population increasing by more than 50% in the next 40 years and again thereafter? Where is the food and energy going to come from to feed and care for that many more people?