From The BBC
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent
- From the section Science & Environment
![_97209910_jung1[2] _97209910_jung1[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/97209910_jung12_thumb.jpg?resize=664%2C375&quality=83)
Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.
However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.
Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4’s Counting Carbon programme.
Bottom-up records
Among the key provisions of the Paris climate deal, signed by 195 countries in December 2015, is the requirement that every country, rich or poor, has to submit an inventory of its greenhouse-gas emissions every two years.
Under UN rules, most countries produce “bottom-up” records, based on how many car journeys are made or how much energy is used for heating homes and offices.
![_97236505_stefan1[2] _97236505_stefan1[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/97236505_stefan12_thumb.jpg?resize=628%2C355&quality=83)
In 2011, Swiss scientists first published their data on levels of a gas called HFC-23 coming from a location in northern Italy.
Between 2008 and 2010, they had recorded samples of the chemical, produced in the refrigeration and air conditioning industries, which is 14,800 times more warming to the atmosphere than CO2.
Now the scientists, at the Jungfraujoch Swiss air monitoring station, have told the BBC the gas is still going into the atmosphere.
“Our estimate for this location in Italy is about 60-80 tonnes of this substance being emitted every year, then we can compare this with the Italian emission inventory, and that is quite interesting because the official inventory says below 10 tonnes or in the region of two to three tonnes,” said Dr Stefan Reimann, from the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology.
“They actually say it is happening, but they don’t think it is happening as much as we see.
“Just to put it into perspective, this greenhouse gas is thousands of times stronger than CO2.
“So, that would be like an Italian town of 80,000 inhabitants not emitting any CO2.”
The Italian environment agency told the BBC its inventory was correct and complied with UN regulations and it did not accept the Swiss figures.
Another rare warming gas, carbon tetrachloride, once popular as a refrigerant and a solvent but very damaging to the ozone layer, has been banned in Europe since 2002.
But Dr Reimann told Counting Carbon: “We still see 10,000-20,000 tonnes coming out of China every year.”
“That is something that shouldn’t be there.
“There is actually no Chinese inventory for these gases, as they are banned and industry shouldn’t be releasing them anymore.”
China’s approach to reporting its overall output of warming gases to the UN is also subject to constant and significant revisions.
Its last submission ran to about 30 pages – the UK’s, by contrast, runs to several hundred.
Back in 2007, China simply refused to accept, in official documents, that it had become the largest emitter of CO2.
“I was working in China in 2007,” said Dr Angel Hsu, from Yale University.
“I would include a citation and statistics that made this claim of China’s position as the number one emitter – these were just stricken out, and I was told the Chinese government doesn’t yet recognise this particular statistic so we are not going to include it.”
A report in 2015 suggested one error in China’s statistics amounted to 10% of global emissions in 2013.
The BBC investigation also discovered vast uncertainties in carbon emissions inventories, particularly in developing countries.
Methane, the second most abundant greenhouse gas after CO2, is produced by microbe activity in marshlands, in rice cultivation, from landfill, from agriculture and in the production of fossil fuels.
Global levels have been rising in recent years, and scientists are unsure why.
For a country such as India, home to 15% of the world’s livestock, methane is a very important gas in their inventory – but the amount produced is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
But it ends with this quote which must be shared.
So, without good data as a basis, Paris essentially collapses. It just becomes a talkfest without much progress.
HT Dodgy Greenhouse-gas Geezer
So with all the extra CO2, CH4, CCL4, etc etc etc, the known warming is now spread so thin the effect due to CO2 is “even less than we thought!” LOL!
They are working on the calculation as we speak. They expect agreement on that calculation by 2050.
Due to unforeseen problems that date will be moved out to 2060. That will then result in a double celebration, as the ozone hole will be repaired that same year.
Now we are making progress.
…HT Dodgy Greenhouse-gas Geezer…
It takes one to know one… 🙂
Was going to post that observation…..Hah!
The First Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy. In ordinary talk, this means that “It is going to get worse before it gets better.”
The Second Law treats with enthalpy, which becomes “Who says it is going to get better?”
No.
Surely no one can be understating their emissions or we would see enormous increases in global warming/ climate change unless of course we accept the unthinkable that the scientists involved in climate studies are overselling the problem considerably.
The Italians are famously reluctant to pay taxes, so perhaps it is not surprising if their carbon accountants have adopted some of the practices of their financial accountants. Mind you, the Swiss have a bit of a reputation for hiding money.
Having seen something of the complexity of carbon accounting that goes on in the UK utility sector it doesn’t surprise me that a national report of hundreds of pages is the end result. The pages of official emission factors (each to 4 decimal places) and the effort required to capture all modes of transport for staff and freight, on top of electricity and fuel use, is all very impressive. If all the effort required were re-directed towards something useful, it could achieve a lot.
Some correction to the BBC story:
CO2 emissions are not based on counting car miles or similar, they are based on fossil fuel sales, which are much easier to obtain, as that makes one of the main incomes of most countries (sales taxes…).
Of course, even that will be somewhat underestimated, because of the human nature to avoid taxes by under-the-counter sales and some countries which want to show how “clean” they are… Anyway for CO2, the figures are not too far off, but more underestimated than overestimated…
CH4 is more difficult, as much CH4 is from natural gas losses at the sources: as byproduct of oil production (without local flares or storage), leaking pipes and also from agriculture (rice paddies) and cattle: more “best guesses” than real figures…
Other gases like HFC’s are more scam stories than real life facts…
This is actually quite an admission by the BBC. Most countries have agreed to reduce their emissions sometime, but there are no laid down standards for measuring emissions and no independent audits of the emissions estimates. Like with the surface temperature data, there will no doubt be very good reasons in peer-reviewed journals for deviating slightly from any guidelines, which will get the desired results for countries. Like with EU regulations, it will only be Britain who will stick to objectivity – and pay the price.
But failing to check the data is par for the course for “climate science“. For instance, the RCP8.5 non-policy emissions estimates are manipulated to enable countries merely signing up to a meaningless agreement making huge difference for the future, whilst President Trump tearing up that useless bit of paper endangers the future of the planet.
Or remember Lewandowsky et al paper “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science“? A check of the data revealed that out of 1145 responses only 10 supported the Conspiracy theory that NASA faked the Moon Landings. Of these, only 3 also supported the “Climate Science is a Hoax” conspiracy theory. Those three also supported all of the 11 other conspiracy theories. No question was asked about the line of reasoning of these three rogue respondents. The headline was not supported by the underlying data.
There’s also a 40 minute radio program on BBC Radio 4 by the same journalist: “Counting Carbon”. Available as a podcast from the link.
I doubt the less than 100% speculation.
How can the “science ” be settled when the data is crap . NOAA gets the date then “shapes ” it. Australia
just eliminates cooler day temperature readings and a little clique of climate “modellers ” amuse themselves by hiding the decline .
The whole climate cartel is lead by a failed politician with virtually no scientific training , a clique of hide the decline climate modellers and Hollywood hypocrites . What could go wrong ?
“Now the scientists, at the Jungfraujoch Swiss air monitoring station, have told the BBC the gas is still going into the atmosphere.”
You trust scientists from a place that looks like Ernst Blofeld’s lair?
Actually I think that is the building used in that movie, and in that Vin Diesel flick. It is a cool looking structure so it probably gets used in all sorts of video and photographs.
Regulate the methane emitters!
Cow fart capture. Tube inserted in cow’s ass
http://intainforma.inta.gov.ar/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/vaca-inta-3.jpg
Rice field cover
http://www.algaecompetition.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/05-2121Normandy10.jpg