
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
China’s estimated total CO2 emissions to date may have to be revised down by 15%, according a study published in Nature, because the coal China is burning is much higher quality than previous calculations assumed.
The abstract of the paper;
Nearly three-quarters of the growth in global carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production between 2010 and 2012 occurred in China. Yet estimates of Chinese emissions remain subject to large uncertainty; inventories of China’s total fossil fuel carbon emissions in 2008 differ by 0.3 gigatonnes of carbon, or 15 per cent. The primary sources of this uncertainty are conflicting estimates of energy consumption and emission factors, the latter being uncertain because of very few actual measurements representative of the mix of Chinese fuels. Here we re-evaluate China’s carbon emissions using updated and harmonized energy consumption and clinker production data and two new and comprehensive sets of measured emission factors for Chinese coal. We find that total energy consumption in China was 10 per cent higher in 2000–2012 than the value reported by China’s national statistics, that emission factors for Chinese coal are on average 40 per cent lower than the default values recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that emissions from China’s cement production are 45 per cent less than recent estimates. Altogether, our revised estimate of China’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production is 2.49 gigatonnes of carbon (2 standard deviations = ±7.3 per cent) in 2013, which is 14 per cent lower than the emissions reported by other prominent inventories. Over the full period 2000 to 2013, our revised estimates are 2.9 gigatonnes of carbon less than previous estimates of China’s cumulative carbon emissions. Our findings suggest that overestimation of China’s emissions in 2000–2013 may be larger than China’s estimated total forest sink in 1990–2007 (2.66 gigatonnes of carbon) or China’s land carbon sink in 2000–2009 (2.6 gigatonnes of carbon).
Read more: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7565/full/nature14677.html
Unfortunately the full study is paywalled, but it would be intriguing to know how much of that “improved” quality estimate is due to the 500 million tons per annum of high quality coal, which Australia exports to China every year, and the millions of tons of high quality coal exported to Asia every year by other producers, such as the USA.
Perhaps greens should be encouraging the USA and Australia to export more coal to China, to help China hold down its CO2 emissions, while China works to replace its annual 2.49 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions, with clean energy from wind turbines.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did somebody notify the CO2 observatory on Mauna Loa Hawaii of this new find? Their graph is going up unchanged for that period. Or is there a hidden source of CO2 hidden in the amazon or Congo rain forests? Or…
Not hidden at all. Its happening in almost every farmer’s field on this planet.
Not hidden either, go get a CO2 meter and with a large bucket and a stopwatch, you can measure it.
Even more interesting is to find a transparent bucket and repeat the experiment on sunny days…..
The ‘Keeling Curve’ is a Piltdown Man, i.e. a fake.
A NOAA fabrication.
Sorry, that is nonsense.
NOAA’s temperature record is a Piltdown Man, but CO2 is measured in “background” atmosphere (as far away from local sources and sinks as possible) at some 70 places on earth not only by NOAA but by lots of other organizations from different countries, which all show the same increase over time (but more or less seasonal swings). See:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
All stations use rigorous test and calibration procedures which show an accuracy of the measurements of +/- 0.2 ppmv for yearly averages:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
South Africa has an equivalent atmospheric monitoring station at Cape Point with run by local volunteer scientists (pro bono). It is operated to a very high standard. It produces a CO2 curve as well. There is also an atmospheric mercury curve that fluctuates wildly, sometimes to zero for several hours, contradicting all expectations. No one know why, yet. Something (biological) in the atmosphere removes mercury.
Also quote: “We find that total energy consumption in China was 10 per cent higher in 2000–2012 than the value reported by China’s national statistics”
BBC are making a huge song and dance about this today. Forget about the rest of the news from the real world.
Steve (Paris) commented: “…BBC are making a huge song and dance about this today. ”
That should be everyone’s clue that it’s political and has nothing to do with the amount of CO2. 15% of China’s emissions aren’t going to change the balance even if CO2 emissions were a factor.
BBC also says
“”China’s emissions may be a bit less than we thought, but we know how much total CO2 there is in the atmosphere and it is monitored globally,” said Prof Dave Reay from the University of Edinburgh.
“This study therefore makes no difference to the total amount in the atmosphere; it simply means that accounting for Chinese emissions is getting better.”
Which begs the question if China isn’t the bad guy anymore then who is? Or are the figures quoted a big guess anyway
The bad guy is everyone. Or everyone who eats any significant amount of starch/carbohydrate food derived from the production of annual plants like wheat, corn, rice etc.
Its easy to tell them apart – they are the fat ones.
The point is that there isn’t a bad guy. The amount of non-anthropogenic CO2 has been underestimated.
Any link for that? Seems a little difficult if humans are emitting twice the increase in the atmosphere, with a fourfold increase in 55 years for both emissions and increase, and there is no sign of any increase in the natural carbon cycle…
It’s grade school math. If the total CO2 in the atmosphere is unaltered by this study and the portion due to emissions from China is now estimated to be lower, the portion due to non-anthropogenic emissions must be higher by the same amount.
What you say doesn’t add up…
Human emissions were (and still are) higher than the increase in the atmosphere, so the contribution of non-natural emissions and sinks was and is negative over the past 55 years: more sink than source.
The only result of the lower emissions from China is that the net sink rate was somewhat lower as the difference between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere got smaller…
Less sink rate is not the same as more contribution…
Hooray! We’re saved!
I think.
CO2 (above about 150 ppmv which is required for life as we know it) doesn’t matter, never has and never will.
Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (new update with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), results in a near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).
What a lose piece of writing by/for Nature. Do they mean Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? See below Anyway, one thing is clear – Chinese statistics are all over the place.
BP made substantial revisions to their CO2 emissions estimate for China in their annual Energy Statistics this year, increasing them by 7.9Gt over the history reported last year, including upward revisions for 2007 of 1Gt and 2008 of 0.9Gt. The idea that 0.3Gt represents 15% of China’s emissions in 2008 implies that the study is indeed referring merely to the elemental carbon tonnage in the CO2 emissions, since BP now report CO2 emissions of 7.7Gt CO2 for China in 2008. By doing this they make China’s emissions appear to be only 12/44ths of what they are (excluding other nasties such as PFCs from Al smelting).
Warm the present, cool the past. Now subtract CO2 from pauses. Works for me.
When the BBC reported this yesterday, (along with lots of footage of non CO2 emitting cooling towers) I was half expecting this to be put forward as an explanation of the “hiatus”.
Extraordinary claim “Science is settled but we have been overestimating China’s coal CO2 by 40% for years.
So it needs Extraordinary Evidence.
I don’t find the sudden switch-a-roo very credible.