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.
D. Patterson says:
November 22, 2010 at 5:52 am
“….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.”
_____________________________________________________________
Like many cults predicting an eminent doom when the doom saying is shown to be false believers leave the cult in droves. However the core people, who were in it for the power and money, and never believed the hype to begin with just move on to another doom scenario.
We saw that as the 1970’s “the Ice Age is coming” leaders switched to “Global Warming” and are now setting up the switch to “Ocean Acidification” It is ALWAYS about power and money. Any good that comes from the cult is incidental.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false face for the desire to rule it” — H.L. Mencken.
Well looks like reality has caught Al Gore again … http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6AL0YT20101122?sp=true
This time it’s ethanol was a mistake. WOW the hits keep coming.
SteveE
Good grief. H2S is a poison. Let me repeat: POISON.
CO2 is a natural trace gas necessary for plant life. That is, it is NOT POISON.
I’d wager if H2S was a byproduct of fossil fuel burning, there would be wide agreement on doing something about it. CO2…not so much. Apples vs.
OrangesCyanide comparisons do little to advance the discussion.Pascvaks says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:40 am
I think they have scared nobody but themselves !!
They are so silly that they didn’t realize it was their own Armageddon they were forecasting LOL!
Now that we have established that GDP is proportional to CO3 production, who would like to do a study on the reverse relationship? Surely a enforcing a reduction in CO2 emissions would reduce the GDP. Or isn’t there any grant money for that conclusion?
So, as Ocean temp drops we may see a slowing if not a drop in CO2-as absorption
increases, then what? I personally predict a revitalization of “NEW ICE AGE!!!”
When Al Gore starts investing in Parkas and Sorels we’ll know…
Gail Combs says:
November 22, 2010 at 5:56 am
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
Not necessarely: Stomata data are proxies and by definition react on CO2 levels over land, which are higher at night/low wind speed. In the afternoon the warming near-earth layers show a better mix with the overlying (background CO2) air. That means that even at 180 ppmv “background” CO2 in the ice cores, trees might have survived as they had at least a few hours of sufficient CO2 in the morning light.
The difference between the average and variability of stomata CO2 reconstructions and direct measurements in ice cores (some 20-30 ppmv) is partly due to changes in local/regional CO2 levels over land (temperature, wind direction, changes in plant types,…) together with temperature, the resolution (far better for stomata) and the accuracy (far worse for stomata +/- 10 ppmv). Thus not directly “destroying” the ice core CO2 data…
“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).”
Here’s the part they didn’t mention:
World Data Centre for Grennhouse Gases
http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/catalogue.cgi
Ground Stations: 326
Ground Stations monitoring CO2: China (4); India (1); (USA NOAA 25 of 28)
“Using the synchronized dataset, the WDCGG calculates monthly means, long-term trends and growth rates for each latitudinal band. Subsequently, the global mean and other global statistics are calculated using latitudinal values weighted according to area. NOAA also publishes global mean mole fractions using their own observation network, which is also part of the GAW network. The difference between the NOAA and WDCGG global mean mole fractions from 1983 to 2006 averaged 0.33±0.31 ppm, primarily because different stations are used in each analysis.”
— source: http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/products/documents/gaw184.pdf
This is a fascinating thread. I am looking forward to SteveE’s point by point response to Dave Springer. I though Dave’s reply was devastating to Steve’s position. Steve’s reply must be in the que as I write this, cuz I haven’t seen it yet.
DCC
I just love your cavalier disregard for CO2 emissions by your use of the new term CO3; which would actually tie up less carbon per tonne. Personally I try to produce as much CO2 as I can because it is good for tomatoes.
PS
Catalytic converters on cars produce some H2S which is evident from the bad eggs smell. H2S becomes lethally toxic when the smell changes to sweet.
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?”
It is a combination of higher pressure and higher temperature. The solubility of CO2 in seawater changes with about 16 ppmv/°C in balance, but oceans are slow emitters/absorbers and at the other side vegetation absorbs more CO2 at higher temperatures. The overall balance is about 8 ppmv/°C over the past 800,000 years.
That also means that as we emit some 4 ppmv/year nowadays, any sudden increase in temperature of 1°C would be overruled in only two years, and nature would be a net absorber again. That is what is happening today: humans emit 4 ppmv/year, nature (oceans + vegetation) absorbs about 2 ppmv/year, the difference can be measured as an increase in the atmosphere…
latitude says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:44 am
So, you’re trying to say that this “natural absorptions” is at a fixed rate and can’t change.
The natural absorptions are roughly in ratio with the difference between the current CO2 level and the “normal” pre-industrial CO2 level at current (ocean) temperatures which was about 290 ppmv. The year-by-year absorption rate increased together with the increase of the emissions, but is influenced by changes in (mainly ocean) temperature: about 4 ppmv/°C short term, 8 ppmv/°C (very) long term. That can be seen in the 1992 Pinatubo colder period (-0.6°C): less CO2 increase and the 1998 El Niño (+0.4°C). But in average, the increase measured in the atmosphere follows the emissions at about 55%:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
So it is quite sure that humans are the cause of the increase. If that has dire consequences is of a complete different order.
“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.”
Huh, so these guy admit to being propagandists. I guess they need groups like this to keep everyone on message. Good thing the rest of us have reality to keep us on message.
SteveE says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:29 am
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?
————————-
Steve coal is made from vegetation right. So yes I think it is(was) part of the biosphere. If you think oil is made from old sea shells etc then yes it is(was) also part of the biosphere.
But that has nothing to do with whether CO2 can increase the temperature of the ground. Please provide your proof (not a link) as to how CO2 can heat the ground.
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?
I don’t think anyone (at least any credible scientist) said CO2 absorption is at a fixed rate. Nature DOES adjust. The question is how quickly.
Since
1) people have produced copious amounts of CO2 in recent decades, and
2) CO2 levels have been rising in recent decades
it is clear that plants and/or the oceans and/or the rest of the biosphere are NOT absorbing the extra CO2 as quickly as it is being added.
Certainly a new balance will indeed be reached, but empirically that has not happened yet. (And it doesn’t help that people are clearing forests, which means fewer plants to absorb the CO2.)
Ian W says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:59 am
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.
Agreed here, it was not sure what you meant by CO2 and rain, but at last that is only circulating…
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.
I don’t think that anybody means that: nature makes no differentiation between anthro and natural CO2, except for the small differences in 12C/13C ratio. But that is not the point here. What is important is that there was a 800,000 years balance between temperature and CO2 levels, which is changed by the human emissions. We are now 100 ppmv above the “normal” 290 ppmv at the current temperature. No matter how much CO2 is exchanged over the seasons, the net balance nowadays is some 4 GtC more sink than source of CO2 by nature, while humans emit some 8 GtC/year as CO2. That means that the 3% extra is responsible for the increase and the circulating 97% only removes some CO2 (thus it slows the increase).
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.
Disagree here: Henry’s Law shows only 16 ppmv/°C for ocean waters. Far from the 100 ppmv increase we see with some 0.7°C increase in temperature… There is a very good ratio between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere and a far less good between temperature and CO2 increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
John from CA says:
November 22, 2010 at 8:22 am
Ground Stations: 326
Ground Stations monitoring CO2: China (4); India (1); (USA NOAA 25 of 28)
Emissions are not based on local/regional CO2 monitoring, they are based on fossil fuel sales and the estimated combustion efficiency. Even then, China figures may be somewhat underestimated…
With all due respect, “Colin from Mission B.C.”, you completely missed the point.
“Good grief. H2S is a poison. Let me repeat: POISON.”
The analogy being offered had nothing to due with how poisonous the two chemicals might be.
The dialog was basically:
Mr. X: “CO2 is important.”
Mr. Y: “CO2 can’t make a noticeable difference. It is less than 0.1 of the atmosphere. How could such a small component be important?”
Mr. X:”Lots of things that show up in small amounts have a big effect. For example, 0.1% of a poison can easily be fatal.”
There are lots of other examples that could have been used.
* vitamin are less that 0.1% of your diet, but they keep you alive.
* dopants are less than 0.1% of the atoms in a semiconductor, but they make our electronic devices possible.
* local police make up less than 0.1% of the population, but they make a big impact on crime.
None of this proves that CO2 is indeed important, but it does prove that “small amounts can be important.” Discussing the actual importance is the next step, but dismissing CO2 as “tiny therefore not important” is a lost argument.
Dave Springer: Where CO2 is very very important to keeping our world warm is when the air is very very dry. The only way to dry the air is to freeze the water vapor out of it and freeze the surface so evaporation can’t replenish it. When that happens there is no negative feedback happening anymore and our good friend and insulator, CO2, helps warm things up enough so the frozen surface melts, evaporation and cloud formation resume, and we’re back in our comfort zone where life can flourish.
If CO2 role in the energy exchange is best expressed in the arctic areas – why, after all of the billions spent, are those areas the least measured (therefore the associated datum is extrapolated more and is of lower confidence) or ignored completely?
Not a chance that’s even close to correct. With paleo records showing as much as 7000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we can be fairly certain that present emission levels were easily exceeded in the past.
But to give them the benefit of the doubt; I am sure it is true that 2010 will exceed 2009; since 2009 exceeded 2008, and 2008 exceeded 2007, and 2007 exceeded 2006, and 2006 exceeded 2005……… and 1960 exceeded 1959 and 1959 exceeded 1958; and then before that we don’t really know.
But when is the USA going to get credits for its agricultural (including forestry) carbon sink; which purportedly more than offests all of our emissions. (from peer reviewed literature)
“”””” Tim Folkerts says:
November 22, 2010 at 9:30 am
With all due respect, “Colin from Mission B.C.”, you completely missed the point.
“Good grief. H2S is a poison. Let me repeat: POISON.” “””””
So is Oxygen; it’s just that the fatal dosage is higher.
Dave Springer says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:58 am
Here’s the deal. When CO2 absorbs longwave in its narrow absorption band it gets a bit warmer (excited). In its excitement it bumps into neighboring atoms and molecules which are most likely to be nitrogen (70% of the atmosphere), oxygen (21%) and so forth. When it bumps into one of those it transfers some of its excitement to them (the bumped warms up, the bumper cools down). Those other molecules then radiate the extra energy in a broad (called continuous) spectrum.
No they don’t and you have been told this many times so it appears that you are the one who is lying not SteveE.
Wade says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:33 am
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.
Good so perhaps we can see the end of the nonsense about a 400ppm gas being able to have a noticeable effect that is spouted by Mr Oplas and others.
“”””” Gail Combs says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:23 am
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? “””””
Well it is well known that the solubility of CO2 in water is higher if the water Temperature is lower; than it is if the Temperature is higher.
So that means that the solubility of CO2 in the ocean is higher in the cooler depths than it is in the warmer surface waters.
Consequently one would expect that CO2 in the warmer water woul tend to diffuse to deeper cooler water, and that would deplete the surface of dissolved CO2. So Henry’s law would dictate that more atmospheric CO2 should continue to dissolve in the ocean, and get pumped to deeper colder waters.
I’m not a chemist; so I will let the chemists calculate the diffusion rate, and the continuous dissolution rate for a steady state condition of a given ocean Temperature profile, and a static atmosphere above it. Yes I know that isn’t a real situation but it is at least as good as their climate cloud models.
Tim Folkerts says:
November 22, 2010 at 9:30 am
“None of this proves that CO2 is indeed important, but it does prove that “small amounts can be important.” Discussing the actual importance is the next step, but dismissing CO2 as “tiny therefore not important” is a lost argument.”
========================================================
Unless one considers the alleged mechanism of CO2 causing warmth, in which case, we’re back to considering the prevalence of CO2 in our atmosphere…..ie, 400 ppm of which basically one bandwidth 15, and then emitted multi-directional. In which case, it is perfectly reasonable to start laughing hysterically at such proposition.
Dave Springer says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:58 am
My hat’s off for Dave Springer!