Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scientific American reports that the world economy is growing without increases in CO2 emissions, which the author attributes to the rise of green energy. However, there are several issues with this claim.
World Economy Grows without Growth in Global Warming Pollution
Energy-sector emissions of CO2 remains flat for second year in a row
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions held steady for the second year in a row while the economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency.
In a simple, two-column spreadsheet released yesterday, IEA showed that the world’s energy sector produced 32.14 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2015, up slightly from 32.13 metric gigatons in 2014. Meanwhile, the global economy grew more than 3 percent.
Analysts credited the rise of renewables—clean energy made up more than 90 percent of new energy production in 2015—for keeping greenhouse gas emissions flat.
“The new figures confirm last year’s surprising but welcome news: we now have seen two straight years of greenhouse gas emissions decoupling from economic growth,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol in a press release. “Coming just a few months after the landmark COP21 agreement in Paris, this is yet another boost to the global fight against climate change.”
…
But some were skeptical of the carbon numbers and questioned IEA’s conclusion that economic growth and energy emissions aren’t linked anymore.
CONSERVATIVES, OTHERS QUESTION IEA DATA
“I think that’s just silly,” said Benjamin Zycher, the John G. Searle chair and an energy scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “The estimates of global greenhouse gas emissions really vary depending on which data set you are looking at.”
Global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions are likely higher, Zycher said. Some nations have had flat emissions but for unique factors that are hard to replicate elsewhere, he said.
Frankly I’m a little skeptical of the model estimates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. For example, we have seen recent enormous revisions to Chinese CO2 estimates, which begs the question of what other mistakes are waiting to be discovered. Whatever is happening to anthropogenic CO2, there doesn’t seem to be a noticeable change to the Mauna Loa CO2 trend, though who knows – perhaps it is too early to tell.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There isn’t necessarily a disconnect between flat energy sector emissions and faster growth of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa: maybe CO2 emissions increased.in other sectors of the economy, such as transportation.
Gary,
I thought that transportation was considered part of the energy sector, in contrast to, say, calcining of limestone to make cement.
Constant level of human CO2 emissions and constant rate of CO2 concentrations increase are consistent with each other. I don’t really think, though, that it counts as success in avoiding rise of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Maybe you should look at the record of co2. Human increase in co2 is a given, the constant rate of co2 concentrations is not.
I wonder if the same change in trend was previously observed during the extreme El Ninos. Great article thanks for sharing
People are missing the point about great uncertainty in estimating CO2 emissions from burning fuels. The base uncertainty is 5%, even if fuel reserves are measured accurately. The better test is to compare directly fuel consumption itself with temperature change.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/claim-fossil-fuels-cause-global-warming/
Everything about uncertainty of measuring CO2 emissions (but were afaid to ask)
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/tools/ghg-uncertainty.pdf
Correction: the above protocol was updated in 2011. Here is the more recent (and easier to read) version:
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/tools/Quantitative%20Uncertainty%20Guidance.pdf
Buried in the notes of the above document:
Note that the uncertainty of the global warming potential (GWP) for the six GHG Protocol gasses is
assumed to be ± 35% for the 90% confidence interval (see Section 7.2).
Mauna Lau CO2 vs New Satellite CO2?
Has anyone done a study?
If have seems maps of the satellite data on WUWT showing the variation of CO2 over the globe and it clearly showed that CO2 was not well mixed as assumed.
How does the average obtained from the satellite data compare to the single Mauna Lau measurement?
The satellite data agrees well with the M-L, S Pole, Cape Grim etc data and clearly shows that the CO2 is well mixed (it is not perfectly mixed as that would require instantaneous dispersal around the globe which no-one has ever suggested).
Phil,
I think we could use a definition of what you mean by “agrees well,” and “well mixed.” Personally, I was surprised to see as much variation as I did in “well mixed” CO2 when I saw the first OCO-2 map. I was taught that CO2 was “well mixed,” but I don’t think I ever saw a claim, or even estimate, of what the spatial variance is.
Clyde Spencer March 18, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Phil,
I think we could use a definition of what you mean by “agrees well,” and “well mixed.” Personally, I was surprised to see as much variation as I did in “well mixed” CO2 when I saw the first OCO-2 map. I was taught that CO2 was “well mixed,” but I don’t think I ever saw a claim, or even estimate, of what the spatial variance is.
‘Well mixed’ is certainly covered by ±1%.
The range of seasonal variation certainly agrees with the sampling at the surface, the larger variance in the NH vs the SH stations. The M-L data showed us to expect a range of 9ppm during the year so I’m not sure why you were surprised to see such a variance in OCO-2.
Phil,
You said, “‘Well mixed’ is certainly covered by ±1%.”
Well for starters, if my memory serves me correctly, the range in the OCO-2 maps is more like 4% However, since the stations you cite are used to calibrate OCO-2, I’d be surprised if they didn’t “agree well” with the satellite data.
Clyde Spencer March 18, 2016 at 2:42 pm
Phil,
You said, “‘Well mixed’ is certainly covered by ±1%.”
Well for starters, if my memory serves me correctly, the range in the OCO-2 maps is more like 4% However, since the stations you cite are used to calibrate OCO-2, I’d be surprised if they didn’t “agree well” with the satellite data.
Firstly, the OCO-2 is not calibrated in the way you claim, secondly the variability over the planet looks more like ±1%, but even ±2% would constitute ‘well mixed’.
Phil,
You said, “Firstly, the OCO-2 is not calibrated in the way you claim,…” From the OCO-2 website ( http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/MeasurementApproach/# ), it states, “The mission plans to conduct regular Target track passes over each of the OCO-2 calibration sites where the ground-based solar-looking Fourier Transform Spectrometers are located. Comparison of space based and ground based measures provides a means to identify and correct systematic and random errors in the OCO-2 Xco2 data products.”
Regardless, if the CO2 measurements at sites like Mauna Loa don’t agree with OCO-2, it should cause some soul searching.
Clyde Spencer March 18, 2016 at 6:43 pm
Phil,
You said, “Firstly, the OCO-2 is not calibrated in the way you claim,…”
From the OCO-2 website ( http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/MeasurementApproach/# ), it states, “The mission plans to conduct regular Target track passes over each of the OCO-2 calibration sites where the ground-based solar-looking Fourier Transform Spectrometers are located. Comparison of space based and ground based measures provides a means to identify and correct systematic and random errors in the OCO-2 Xco2 data products.”
Exactly, those are calibration sites (Sahara desert) which are acquiring FT Spectra to compare with the ones taken by the satellite, they are not the land based CO2 measurement sites such as ML, Cape Grim etc.
Full details of the calibration procedure is to be found here:
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/CalibrationOverview/#
Extrapolating the Mauna Loa trend gives a date around 2040 for reaching the “dreaded” level of 450 ppm. Spend trillions and that date may be delayed by a few years. Who voted for that?
Certainly no sign yet of “bending the CO2 curve” downward. Linear trend analysis at Mauna Loa from 1959 to 2015 show an average annual increase of 1.5 ppm/year. From 1990 to 2015, the trend is 1.9 ppm.year. Last four years have shown over 2 ppm/year increases. If sustained, should be in the range of 440-460 ppm by 2050.
Perhaps temperature drives CO2 and not the other way around. In other words CO2 is the dependent variable driven by temperature (and other things) rather than the (most important) independent variable that drives temperature.
“Perhaps temperature drives CO2 and not the other way around.”
It’s not either/or.
Both things occur.
Walt D.,
Temperature was the main driver for CO2 in the pre-industrial past. The opposite effect indeed is rather weak if one looks at times where the temperature hardly moves for a 40 ppmv drop in CO2, like at the end of the previous glacial period (the Eemian).
The historical ratio was about 16 ppmv/°C. With 1°C warming since the LIA, that is good for maximum 16 ppmv, the rest is from human emissions…
Ferdinand,
Interestingly, during the Summer months in the Northern Hemisphere, when CO2 levels are at the seasonal lowest, we have the highest temperatures. Clearly, any potential impact that CO2 has on temperature is overwhelmed by insolation.
I love that graph… 15-point range out of 400, to make a “scary” slope.
Can anyone say… “Broken window fallacy”
Bastiat is not relevant. He was pointing out that a broken window might appear to stimulate the economy, but that is because you do not see what the resources would have been used for if the window was not broken. That is not the case here.
Claiming the economy is improving because of green projects, whist wasting untold billions on white elephant greenery seems very relevant.
Frosty,
Of course it’s relevant. Just look at the misappropriation of resources into alternative power. $Billions wasted every year, which would otherwise go to more productive uses.
But I only minored in Econ, so what do I know?
CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, greens celebrate.
I was always waiting for them to take credit for “the pause.” Maybe next time.
“World Economy Grows without Growth in Global Warming Pollution”
The fact is that there is no “Global Warming Pollution”. CO2 is not pollution.
The other particulate emissions cool the earth as the “team” told us when the “pause” was recognized. They blamed particulate emissions from China as the cooling agent.
Victory over CO2 hail resemble energy ,not quite
World economy and population grows CO2 concentrations remains static
Trees and vegetation must be soaking more CO2 up
Odd, they can see CO2 decoupling from economic growth, but can’t see that CO2 was never coupled with temperature change… must be that new-new math
I really do not trust the MONA Loa measurement since it is right next door to the most active volcano on earth.
Same results in China.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/14/2541/2014/acp-14-2541-2014.pdf
I’m extremely happy to see the world economy grow and CO2 emissions stay flat. This means renewables plus replacement of coal with natural gas, plus the gradual shift in the Chinese economy to services, do impact emissions growth.
I also noticed the world’s average surface temperature reached the 1.5 degree C limit, but nothing bad happened. It’s time to celebrate this event/victory with relief, and focus on something else, like the mess in the Middle East.
Eric Worrall said:
The Mauna Loa “yearly” min/max CO2 ppm trend is quite easy to predict even for someone like myself who is not a Degreed atmospheric scientist, ….. and my 2015 “max” prediction was, to wit:
But close only counts in Horseshoes and my prediction was 0.41 ppm to high, to wit:
2015 4 2015.292 403.26 ppm
2015 5 2015.375 403.94 ppm
2015 6 2015.458 402.80 ppm
Source ref: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
And February 2016 “max” CO2 ppm was 404.02 ppm but the yearly “max” CO ppm is still two (2) months from now (mid May) and will probably top out at 405.37 ppm.
Cheers
Your estimate is only high because last year they declared that co2 production had leveled off and there wouldn’t be 1 BMT increase this year. And that 1 BMT translates into 0.41 ppm/v. plus or minus a few hundredths. I am surprised it’s not higher with El Nino. So which do you believe, we really leveled off or even with an El Nino year the sink is expanding?
I believe that their declared giga-tons of co2 production for the previous year is only calculated after they find out what the Mauna Loa “max” ppm count was for that year.
Thus, every one of their yearly declared “giga-tons of human emitted co2” is in actuality a “hindcast” that is calculated after-the-fact.
A very cogent point if true, Sam. Doing so would make the entire game a circular exercise, and render the claim that humans are driving CO2 levels unfalsifiable.
Bartemis, it’s not only true, it’s a literal fact, to be exact.
I would say that 90+% of all claims and comments being written or voiced by the CAGW’ers about or relative to the atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities are rooted or based in/on the Keeling Curve data (Mauna Loa Record).
DUH, the pre-industrial CO2 ppm quantity of 180 was interpolated via use of Keeling’s CO2 data. And DUH, plant stomata proxies proves that the 180 ppm interpolation to be 100% wrong.
Plants die at 150 ppm. At an atmosphere of 180 ppm, plants start to become stressed. I’m using without regard as to whether the data is right or not, the offical data from NOAA. The reason I do that is in the proof that something is very wrong and needs to be explained. Is the CAGW crowd going to contend that the offical numbers are wrong?
The argument can be made that human co2 emissions have saved the planet from another extinction… and ourselves.
Ok it’s all over, The Paris summit was a waste of time, the problem was already solved a couple of years ago and people will be getting a refund on their carbon taxes in the mail soon.
Kidding aside, this is predictable behavior, after blaming modern civilization for bringing the earth to near calamity, now they are taking credit for saving both the earth and civilization. This is a recognizable pattern in politics; identify a severe but vaguely defined problem, take absolute credit for solving the problem, gain wealth and power.
The key is defining a problem that is easily manipulated into being worse or better depending on the political needs of the moment. Climate Change may be the best ever in this regard, since perception of it is so easily manipulated for political gain.
If it is true that CO2 emissions have been flat, it’s due to two factors.
First and foremost, the switch from coal to natural gas for power production, and that is thanks 100% to the fracking revolution.
Secondly, to the ongoing drive by industry to become more efficient. A drive that goes back to the dawn of human history and has nothing to do with the current CO2 scare.
One example I like to use is the LED light bulb. The white light LED is possible because of the invention about a decade ago of the blue light LED. The blue light LED is something the LED industry had been searching for for many years, but it was due to CDs and DVDs, it had nothing to do with energy efficiency.
The shorter the wavelength, the more precisely the beam can be focused. This means that you can get more data onto a CD. (Which is why your blu-ray disc can hold several times as much data as a standard DVD. It also explains why you can read a standard DVD in a blu-ray player, but you can’t read a blu-ray disc in a standard player.)
(Idle question, when we are talking about CD’s and such, why do we call them disc’s and not disk’s?)
It was pure serendipity that the existence of the blue light LED also made white light LEDs possible.
The statement about “human emissions being flat” for the past two years is totally without credibility, because it is based on accounting and voluntary declarations by participating nations, and not all participate to begin with, declarations that may or may not be accurate. In the past many such declarations were shown to be hugely in error, or downright deceptive. At the same time, the measurements of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, for example, at Mauna Kea, show no such plateau at all. So clearly, the declarations and the accounting are in disagreement with observations.
Second, the statement that the global economy continued to grow at the same time is also without credibility, because we know that the global economy is in deep crisis. The origin of the crisis was the China’s stock market crash that nearly halted their own development for a while. This had a chain effect on the whole world economy. The US economy has been extremely sluggish throughout the whole period of the Obama presidency, not in the least because of the actions of his administration that did all it could to paralyze the country’s industrial output. The EU economy, similarly, nearly drew to halt. Africa is a basket case, war in the north, alongside with the unending war in the Middle East, doubtless helped by Obama’s inept foreign policy. Russia’s completely stagnant. Wherever you look, over the past two years, economic malaise prevails. This is not growth.
Why then the double lie? It is a propaganda attempt to brainwash people, Americans in particular, into believing that “green policies” work, and that the whole world has taken action in sympathy with these policies. In other words, resistance is futile. It is a false declaration of success in the face of evident failure.
Paris was a failure, the nations of the world rejecting any mandatory impositions upon their economies. Today we’re seeing Japan budgeting for tens of new coal fired power plants. Australia’s coal exports are booming. The Energiewende in Germany has resulted in increased CO2 emissions from lignite power plants that were brought back on line, even new ones added, as the government terminated nuclear power plants, and as “renewables” destabilized Germany’s power grid. Britain lowered taxes on oil and gas. Poland refused to support calls for more CO2 restrictions within EU. Altogether more than 2000 new coal fired power plants are planned around the world.
And India’s economy has barely taken off. We are yet to see it soar.
This is entirely predictable behavior by the greens. Looking back at the last el nino and the spike in co2 levels, the increase in anthropogenic production would be hard to explain in correlation with the release in co2 from the current el nino. How much of the increase is due to El nino and how much from anthropogenic? If they can tell by isotope ratois, then we need to go back to 1998 to determine the amount from natural increase and anthropogenic. If 1999 was 0.93 ppm/v then fully 2.0 ppm/v was due to natural release assuming no natural release for 1999. The numbers for the sink, growth of co2 and production rates are not consistent.
rsihrac,
See here.
The opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show that the temperature influence was mainly in (tropical) vegetation, as result of higher ocean temperatures. These are in general rather CO2 neutral, but during El Niño conditions are a (regional) source of CO2. Still emissions were larger than the increase (on a yearly base) thus nature still was a net, but quite variable sink…
BTW, sink rate doesn’t depend of the momentary human emissions but of the total increase of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium for the ocean temperature. The huge variability is mainly from short term responses by vegetation.
Whatever or however it is decribed, the cold hard fact is for the last 10 years the sink has not only gotten bigger but in any one of those 10 could easily sink all the co2 produced in 1965 and half of 1966. It’s not variable but growing. If the sink was as large in 1965 as it is today, the net effect would be a minus 2 ppm/v for that year.
rishrac,
The sinks are growing quasi-linear with the increased pressure in the atmosphere, thus any comparison with the past must taken into account the change in pressure (ppmv). Still emissions are over twice the increase in the atmosphere, or the sinks are about half the emissions, plus the year by year variability caused by short term temperature fluctuations…
Crude Mystery: Where Did 800,000 Barrels of Oil Go?
Tally of unaccounted-for oil hit highest level in 17 years in 2015; oil data is ‘an imperfect science’
http://www.wsj.com/articles/crude-mystery-where-did-800-000-barrels-of-oil-go-1458207004?mod=trending_now_4
The numbers on energy and carbon are at best crude.
“Analysts credited the rise of renewables—clean energy made up more than 90 percent of new energy production in 2015—for keeping greenhouse gas emissions flat.”
Can someone translate this talking point? How many coal plants have been taken offline in 2015 and what is the net new contribution of the “new energy production” referenced? Snake oil for sale?
A pause? The createns identified a PAUSE??? Of 2 fricken years???????
But, CO2 at 400ppm was already going to kill us last year! (So they said)
How come they are happy???