DANGER ZONE: Continuing increases in global greenhouse gas emissions put the world on track for the highest predicted temperature increases as a result of climate change.
Image: Flickr/eutrophication&hypoxia
The world's carbon dioxide output hit a new record high last year and is poised to break that record in 2012, according to a new study.
Global CO2 emissions grew 3 percent last year, and scientists with the Global Carbon Project estimate they will grow another 2.6 percent this year, to an estimated 35.6 billion metric tons. They expect the amount of CO2 emitted this year by burning fossil fuels to grow to 58 percent above the 1990 emissions level.
CO2 emissions grew sharply this year in China, by 9.9 percent, and in India, which recorded a 7.5 percent gain. Emissions from the United States fell by 1.8 percent, and from the European Union by 2.8 percent.
But global CO2 emissions are still on track to meet or exceed the most extreme emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 report, and by the scenarios the panel will use in the report it will release next year, scientists with the Global Carbon Project said.
"We find that current emission trends continue to track scenarios that lead to the highest temperature increases," they wrote in an analysis published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change. "Further delay in global mitigation makes it increasingly difficult to stay below 2 degrees Celsius."
The lead author of the study, Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia, offered her own blunt assessment. "I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory," she said in a statement. "We need a radical plan."
Many governments believe that holding the average global temperature rise caused by man-made warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels gives the world the best chance to avoid dangerous climate change.
But the new analysis, as well as a report released last week by the United Nations, concludes that the difficulty of meeting that goal is growing along with the world's fossil fuel output.
'Significant' reductions needed
The U.N. Environment Programme's "Emissions Gap 2012" report cautions that even if nations meet their strictest pledges, the world will not be able to cut its output of greenhouse gases in time to prevent runaway global warming (ClimateWire, Nov. 21).
The Global Carbon Project's analysis, which compares the world's actual CO2 output with four generations of emissions scenarios used by the IPCC, concludes that "significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep 2 degrees Celsius as a feasible goal," echoing the recent U.N. assessment.
But that does mean such cuts are impossible, said the international team of scientists.
Some countries have been able to reduce their emissions steadily over a 10-year period, often by a combination of government policies and market reaction to the availability of fossil fuels and other natural resources.
Belgium, France and Sweden put new energy policies in place, increasing efficiency and introducing more nuclear power into their energy mix, in response to the oil crisis of 1973, the new study notes. As a result, CO2 emissions from those countries fell by 4 to 5 percent per year for a decade or more.
And in the United States, increasing use of natural gas in recent years has cut the country's CO2 emissions an estimated 1.4 percent per year since 2005, the study says.
In addition to the analysis published in Nature Climate Change, the scientists working under the Global Carbon Project umbrella published a more detailed technical analysis of the world's CO2 emissions yesterday in the journal Earth System Science Data Discussions.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentOne of many things that are amusing when examining the topic of climate change is the topic of CO2 emissions. The article identifies countries whose emissions have risen by 9.9 percent while some other countries have only risen by 5.4 percent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is amusing is when you examine the basis of these estimates you will find that the real accuracy for the emissions from any particular country is actually no more accurate than +/- 20%. We do not know how much CO2 is actually being emitted by humans, we roughly estimate this number.
Fyi- we also do not KNOW the percentage of CO2 that is in the atmosphere that was caused by humans. That is another number that is only estimated. Science KNOWS that humans are emitting a lot of CO2, and we also know that natural emissions vary over time in response to external forcings. There is much to learn.
Warmists, what gives here, you people have claimed for decades we are already well beyond any kind of saving and we humans are in fact already dead, the momentum in our bodies just has not given out yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAside from the fact the most extreme computer model predictions of CO2 concentrations do not come close to historic highs such as the PETM, when mammals and subsequently humans developed your numbers are all nonsense. Guesses on averages on estimates all compared against what you "believe" is the correct concentration of CO2. What is more amusing is your Kyoto protocol is written in a way that pretends countries like India, somehow as a schedule B country they can emit unlimited amounts of CO2, so apparently only Western or American cause CO2 counts. Then you people dont even include all of the CO2 produced by a country like India. You only count the CO2 from a factory or a car. You dont include the half billion cook and heating fires the majority of the population does to eat or heat their hovels and tents again, doesnt count.
Regardless, you may as well claim it is up by 40%, why not. So instead of it being .041%(based on the claim in the article) you could report.054%...ooooh.
It hardly matters. Global warming might be affected by humans, the problem with you so called warmists is the focus on one single cause with no proof in an atmosphere you know so little about you could not possibly know what the causes are. The key here is causes, it is likely many, natural and unnatural, which is the mistake you are making.
But then when your real goal is obtaining government grants, tax money, regulatory power, then a single cause is easier to market and a natural molecule like CO2 as the boogey man is also something you can completely control the story about. You want more tax money or regulation, then somehow CO2 is up 9.9%, want to make a couple countries feel better, they only had a 5.4%, want to prove your snake oil fixes are working and justify your taking that tax money, then somehow CO2 will have fallen by 1%, then when the next round of scientists want better vacations, CO2 is back up 4%, so politicians send more money.
It is not hard to work out what that scam is. Easy to do with a molecule you cant measure and can invent what the "true" concentration should be.
Ships that spill oil at sea are discovered by the isotopic ratios of the carbon in the oil that was dumped. The isotopic ratios of different oil fields are different. The ages of the carbon in oil fields are different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe isotopic ratio of the carbon isotopes in the CO2 that comes from fossil fuels is different from the isotopic ratio of the carbon in CO2 that comes from burning wood or rotting plants.
"the problem with you so called warmists" ... dude, you're the one calling them warmists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with your arguments is that they've all actually already been addressed with rigorous data that supports the consensus view.
And the point is what? A human burning oil or burning down a forest to clear for agriculture or just to cook, still released carbon that would have otherwise been contained in something other than the atmosphere. I know warmists prefer to blame a billion cars for global warming but the 4 billion cook fires, heating fires and acres of forest being wiped out is also a factor, even if warmists prefer to blame only the western countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evidence is now pointing to a runaway uncontrolled experiment on the world we rely on to live....dangerous stuff indeed. Human greed and capitalism are showing that we have within us the seeds of our own demise. The question is do we have sufficient intelligence to fix it before it really is too late. We are getting close to discovering the answer to that question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you have written is correct, but that does not mean that you can determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is do to humans burning fossil fuel by isotopic measurements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuesses on averages on plugged assumptions is not data or proof of anything. And considering the warmists still believe the sole and only cause of global warming is CO2 and the only solution to it is government regulation and taxes, I fail to see where my opinions have been proven false by rigorous data and last time I checked science was about facts and what can be proven not consensus views. It was the consensus view the earth was nothing to the west of Spain until someone actually sailed across the ocean and proved it. It was the consensus view the universe revolved around the earth until one guy proved it and the only reason he could prove it was his being so far out of mainstream Europe at the time in Poland, there were no supporters of the consensus view to execute him before he could prove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsensus is not science. Consensus and the rigorous statistical data you claim is proves the consensus is nothing at all but people too lazy to actually be scientists.
sisko, true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisany one who claims any accuracy to declare '2.6 increase in emissions...blah, blah,' is whistling in the wind.
In tragedy there can be opportunity. It appears to be inevitable that the Greenland ice sheeet will go the way of the arctic summer ice and the glaciers in Glacier National Park. Thus we may expect to have to abandon most of our coastal cities due to rising sea levels. (20 ft., I believe)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we rebuild on higher ground, we will have an opportunity to learn from our mistakes. We do not have to turn planning over to real estate developers and instead of segregated cities where work, dwelling, shopping and schools are many miles apart, connected by overcrowded roads and 2 ton cars accelerating over and over from zillions of stops, we could build communities where we could walk to where we need to go. (Remember walking? It helps prevent obesity.)
Perhaps we might even move north to more temperate climes into bulidings designed to be heated and colled without resorting to burning fossil fuels. If we didn't waste so much energy (90%, by my estimate), sun, wind, tides and geothermal could supply our energy needs. Don't forget we live on the surface of hot planet.
It may be too late too keep Greenland from melting, but perhaps we can save Antarctica?
For the past 800,000-years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has not exceeded 230-ppm until now. Now it is exceeding 400-ppm and continues to climb rapidly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe warming of the atmosphere that we have caused with this is probably only the first of many consequences. Storms like hurricane Sandy will be more common.
But the worst effects could come from the ocean, which is a large source of the oxygen we breathe. The carbon dioxide and trapping of heat is changing the chemistry of the ocean. It is now becoming more acidic.
If the photosynthetic processes that produce oxygen are destroyed by this change in oceanic chemistry, then moving to higher ground will be a moot point as the healthful gases now emitted by the ocean may replaced by those not be fit to support human life.
I don't understand why anyone that isn't a complete psychopath would want to take that chance, especially in view of the costs we're already seeing.
Attempting to refute the absolutely false assertation that climatologists pick data to promote their assumptions with your own cherry-pick? I hope that was a joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that you did not scienceproofread your argument. . . . Probably hangin' with Carlyle in his mom's basement, or the Hartland Institute headquarters.
@ 11. Scienceproofreader
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know where you get your misinformation.
It looks as if Canada is projected to have about an average winter overall. A portion to the northwest colder than normal, most of Canada normal, and the southeast warmer than normal. Colder than last year, but a record cold winter is not being projected. But these are only
projections and OF WEATHER, not climate.
Regarding polar bears "there are in fact 19 populations of polar bears, and cited the most comprehensive and widely-respected research, collated by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, which suggests that of those whose fluctuations have been measured, one is increasing, three are stable and eight are declining." (http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/19/ridleyed-with-errors/ and http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html).
I suppose it the Dunning-Kruger effect that compels you to comment on something you clearly know nothing about.
Waste of internet bandwidth arguing. The evidence is in, the science is done, the conclusions are drawn. Time to plan a response to the problem or let nature take its course. Remember, we need the earth more than it needs us! It will still be here eons after the arguments have stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlways a image of a dirty black plum of smoke. Hey guys CO2 is a clear odorless gas you just exhaled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMankind produces 3% of the earth total CO2 production. Termites produce over 7% of green houses gasses. How come we don't have the same right to live here as the Termite?
@PT, the errors in comments by sicko, prid and sciencepr can be attributed to one thing, lies. That is what they do here, lie. That is all they have ever done. So you can provide them with all the facts you like, but when the next article about climate change is posted, they will come here and spout the same lies. They are sociopaths. They have no interest in the truth, just in advancing their interests. They don't care about the costs. All they care about is themselves. That is what it is to be a sociopath. The question is, can democratic societies survive technological advancement if the population is scientifically illiterate and they are lead by sociopaths? I doubt it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFairly close to reality. It is a waste of time linking articles of science facts to these people as they will not/have not read them. For example....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2011/09/08/science-the-tea-party-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect/
It is best to keep our comments to the science and the reality we find ourselves in. The worst thing to do is to reply to any of their comments. When we stop responding to them they will eventually go away.....unlike climate change!!
So what America and Europe do makes no differance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo lets let China grow and send our econony and standard of living into the sewer
Very noble.
Dumb as hell
sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What is amusing is when you examine the basis of these estimates you will find that the real accuracy for the emissions from any particular country is actually no more accurate than +/- 20%. We do not know how much CO2 is actually being emitted by humans, we roughly estimate this number. "
That's what's so bogus about these climate 'models. the variables are chosen arbitrarily and then assigned values that have little discipline. Tweak them here or there and come out with a pre-ordained result.
I can understand why people say "don't feed the scientifically illiterate trolls" but damn it is amusing to see them get shredded by the abundance of evidence. I have been reading, but not commenting, on these threads for years and the one thing that is surprising is their persistence even in the face of defeat they simply wait a few days\weeks\months and then bring up the same tripe. Every single talking point they (the liars) bring up has been refuted rigorously many times but still they hit back with the same rubbish. Looked at as a pattern over a long time one must come to the conclusion they're paid. Surely, what semi scientifically minded person cannot follow a simple line of logic. Anyway I quite enjoy it when these people make ridiculous post that make them look like utter fools, its not many in the real world who are wiling to put there face to these kinds of arguments, they would be laughed out of any serious scientific discussion. Also as a plus after so long reading these comments sections I have sharpened my own understanding of some of the more contentious issues surrounding climate change, which I can share with the genuinely curious people I might encounter. So thanks to all the scientific voices on this website who up hold reason and logic and to the antagonists I smirk in derision at every transparent post that instantly screams false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIm reading that in the Eocene Epoch (55.8 to 33.9 Mya) ice caps on the poles were small or non existing. Still sea levels were low and there were land bridges between Asia and N.America and between N.America and Europe and in the beginning of this epoch also between South America and the Antarctica (cf www.enotes.com). Today the alarmists are explaining to us that sea levels will be rising (starting from a much higher level (plus 100 m?) than in the Eocene) because of melting ice caps on the poles. Also CO2 was high (500 ppm) at that epoch and global temperatures as well. What should we believe, exept that nobody nows why there is a Global Warming happening, if there is one, and obviously there was no human activity in the Eocene to justify the A in AGW!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to stop emitting Co2 --- there should not be any doubt — I appeal to all to put our hands together to find out commercially viable break through chemistry of carbon sequestration so that there will not be any additional financial burden for the Thermal Power Plants, till then we all to jump immediately for implementation of restrictions geographically/ country wise on bulk Co2 emissions. We must have extreme separate norms for extreme hot countries and extreme cold countries. Miss NEHALI & Gautam K Das gautamkd@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt amazes me that the repliers on these site profess such great knowledge. If we don't depend upon science, what do you propose we depend upon? Your god or mine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou call them 'warmists' a new one on me, but the scientific predictions are borne out by the evidence that I'm seeing. There is a problem. We are soiling our nests - our world - and there are solutions proposed. If you are not party to the solutions, then you are a part of the problem.
Glad you are amused, Sisko. Be sure and write that down somewhere so that future generations can appreciate the depth of your concern.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody wants a reduced quality of life, so what we should be working on is technologies for self-supporting and sustainable communities that keep the desired quality level, but are designed for high levels of recycling and low levels of waste, including CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think trying to tack on these features to existing homes and industry will work very well, they need to be designed that way from the start. This is called a "systems approach", and is not usually practiced. You look at the entire system as a whole and identify inputs, outputs, and flows between elements, and purposely design things to get the result you want.
Record high CO2 emissions... yet, temperatures have been flatlined for at least 16 years. Warmist continue to broadcast our doom to all who have impaired critical thinking facilities and who merely conform to "sky is falling" thrill seeking. Plants ignore the alarmist rhetoric and continue to covert the CO2 into carbohydrates at increasing growth rates. It is their way of saying THANKS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe millions of refugees predicted by the alarmists by 2012, failed to arrive. No coastal cities inundated and not a single CO2 fatality has been reported. Nature just doesn't care about silly socialist agendas and alarmist apocalyptic wailing and fantasy.
They have become so desperate that they now try to blame every weather event as AGW sourced. This makes them the laughing stock of working scientists.
May gaia help us when this cycle turns to cooling and real weather consequences emerge. GK
Silly Karst, using the popular 16 year fallacy and the debunked assumption that plant growth rates will increase as a result of increased CO2 levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
@G. Karst, is this really the best thing you can do with your life, spread lies about AGW on sciam? Is being a shill the only contribution you can make? Do you really have nothing better to do than shows us all how ignorant you are? It seems like a pathetic existence to be a pathological denier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@R Schmidt; moss boss; G.Karst
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are plenty of examples in prehistoric times where temperatures or sea levels or CO2 concentrations on earth and in the atmosphere were either higher or lower than now. But zero human influence ! The only correct conclusion to be drawn is that there is a powerful link, for reasons as yet unknown, between temperatures and CO2 levels, a sort of equilibrium between both. So there is at least a serious doubt on the role of CO2 and any investment into its sequestration etc should be questioned. Instead lets concentrate on scientific fact finding and industrial solutions that work, like dams, pollution control, internalisation of external costs etc.
So true, the Carbon emissions need to be controlled and the action needs to start from this second. I think to reduce this Carbon emission level all our governments need to stand on one rule, and should increase the Carbon taxes, maybe this will create the green revolution in this corporate world. Change needs to start from the biggest and the smallest forms of carbon emitters. In consideration to this, our today lives are undergoing so much change and the sad part is that the effects of these changes are now direct influencing but are indirectly and slowly influencing every one of our life's. Our indoor air is getting more and more toxic every min as we speak. I may be a worrier, but this is just because their is so much impact on me with out my action. World has changed, its no longer true that , our actions will have an impact on our life's, but it is now like every one of our actions will have an impact on others life's too. I personally use a CO2 meter in my office and home to monitor the CO2 levels around me. i brought a CO2 meter from here and it is really helpful, and they have many of them to choose from depending on your budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.airconcern.co.uk/indoor-air-quality-instruments-co2-meters-c-1_132_137.html