Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Sep 23, 2011.

  1. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,763
    Thanks Received:
    4,612
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,229
    Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990
    2010 Carbon Dioxide, Worst Year Ever
    Discovery.com, Sept. 23, 2011

    A record-setting 36.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide were added to the atmosphere in 2010. That's a 45 percent increase in the global annual release of carbon dioxide by humans since 1990, reports the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in the report "Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions."

    Although many industrialized nations made cuts in the amount of carbon dioxide pollution they created, the rapid growth of India, China, Brazil and other developing nations resulted in a net increase during the two decades studied in the report.


    The good news is that countries which signed on to the Kyoto Protocol seem likely to meet their reduction goal of 5.3 percent from 1990 levels. The European Union-27 and Russia decreased emissions by 7 percent and 28 percent respectively, between 1990 and 2010. Japan's emissions stayed at about the same level.

    The United State's annual release of carbon dioxide increased 5 percent between 1990 and 2010.

    After the global economy was shaken in 2008, emissions fell. But from 2009 to 2010 carbon dioxide made a serious comeback. Emissions increased 5.8 percent during that period, the fastest ever. Major economies, China (10 percent), India (9 percent), USA (4 percent) and the EU-27 (3 percent) led the pack in increased emissions of carbon dioxide pollution.

    The record setting increase in emissions between 2009 and 2010 was really more of a return to normal after the economic recovery, and didn't necessarily represent a massive failure in reduction plans. For example, the report notes that the EU-27's emissions were lower in 2010 (4.4 billion tons) than in 2007 (4.6 billion tons).

    On a person-by-person basis, the United States is still the world's number one carbon dioxide polluter, although China now releases more. The USA emits 18.6 tons of carbon dioxide per person, compared to China's 7.5 tons and the EU-27's 8.8 tons.

    Despite trends towards renewable energy, hybrid cars and other more efficient technologies, power generation (40 percent) and road transportation (15 percent) account for the lion's share of pollution production, in both the industrialized and the developing world.

    The European Commission’s report is based on data from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research as well as country by country statistics.

    Carbon dioxide allows ultraviolet radiation from the sun to pass through the Earth's atmosphere. That radiation then heats the surface, producing infrared radiation. But carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation within Earth's atmosphere, and causes average global temperatures to rise.

    2010 Carbon Dioxide, Worst Year Ever : Discovery News


    b2 is 2c of warming globally...Which is 36.5 gtons of carbon. 23.5 gtons in 2000 +13 gtons added to that based on the ipcc http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig4-1.jpg ,=36.5 gtons. If this right we're about to hit it.

    WOW, this says -> IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News and this Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink | Environment | The Guardian says 30.6 billion tons for 2010, but this says we're at 36.4 billion tons, which takes us to near b2 emissions by 2030 estimate right now. I don't know what to trust.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  2. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    And global temperatures don't seem to be reacting properly to such an increase do they? Must be something dreadfully wrong with the greenhouse hypothesis.
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,587
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,393
    Really? The Northwest and Northeast Passages are both open at present. Open enough for big freighters. We are in the midst of a year with two strong La Ninas, and still a TSI that is lower than it has been, but we are still having warm temperatures globally. UAH, GISS, and the rest all agree that the temps are definately in the plus category, in spite of the negative forcings.
     
  4. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,763
    Thanks Received:
    4,612
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,229
    What to believe,
    1# The 30.6 gtons
    2# The 36.4 gtons

    That is the question
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,587
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,393
    Well, both are a path to catastrophe. And the bean counters will sort it out in the coming months.

    If this years double La Nina gives us a properly cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere, I think the larger figure will be a certainty for 2011-2012.
     
  6. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120


    Multiple peer reviewed studies have shown that the ice loss in the arctic is due to wind, and weather patterns, not global warming. Sorry guy, you fail again.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,587
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,393
    Present those studies, or be branded the liar you are.
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,269
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,076
    How accurately did they measure back in old 1900?
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,587
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,393
    Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

    Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence
    Steven C. Amstrup,1, 7 Eric T. DeWeaver,2 David C. Douglas,3 Bruce G. Marcot,4 George M. Durner,1 Cecilia M. Bitz5 & David A. Bailey6
    Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author Journal name:
    Nature
    Volume:
    468,
    Pages:
    955–958
    Date published:
    (16 December 2010)
    DOI:
    doi:10.1038/nature09653
    Received 30 March 2010 Accepted 08 November 2010 Published online 15 December 2010
    Article tools日本語要約

    On the basis of projected losses of their essential sea-ice habitats, a United States Geological Survey research team concluded in 2007 that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) could disappear by mid-century if business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions continue1, 2, 3. That projection, however, did not consider the possible benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. A key question is whether temperature increases lead to proportional losses of sea-ice habitat, or whether sea-ice cover crosses a tipping point and irreversibly collapses when temperature reaches a critical threshold4, 5, 6. Such a tipping point would mean future greenhouse gas mitigation would confer no conservation benefits to polar bears. Here we show, using a general circulation model7, that substantially more sea-ice habitat would be retained if greenhouse gas rise is mitigated. We also show, with Bayesian network model outcomes, that increased habitat retention under greenhouse gas mitigation means that polar bears could persist throughout the century in greater numbers and more areas than in the business-as-usual case3. Our general circulation model outcomes did not reveal thresholds leading to irreversible loss of ice6; instead, a linear relationship between global mean surface air temperature and sea-ice habitat substantiated the hypothesis that sea-ice thermodynamics can overcome albedo feedbacks proposed to cause sea-ice tipping points5, 6, 8. Our outcomes indicate that rapid summer ice losses in models9 and observations6, 10 represent increased volatility of a thinning sea-ice cover, rather than tipping-point behaviour. Mitigation-driven Bayesian network outcomes show that previously predicted declines in polar bear distribution and numbers3 are not unavoidable. Because polar bears are sentinels of the Arctic marine ecosystem11 and trends in their sea-ice habitats foreshadow future global changes, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to improve polar bear status would have conservation benefits throughout and beyond the Arctic12.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,587
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,393
    The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

    The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification
    James A. Screen1 & Ian Simmonds1
    Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author Journal name:
    Nature
    Volume:
    464,
    Pages:
    1334–1337
    Date published:
    (29 April 2010)
    DOI:
    doi:10.1038/nature09051
    Received 10 November 2009 Accepted 12 March 2010
    Article tools日本語要約

    The rise in Arctic near-surface air temperatures has been almost twice as large as the global average in recent decades1, 2, 3—a feature known as ‘Arctic amplification’. Increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have driven Arctic and global average warming1, 4; however, the underlying causes of Arctic amplification remain uncertain. The roles of reductions in snow and sea ice cover5, 6, 7 and changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation8, 9, 10, cloud cover and water vapour11, 12 are still matters of debate. A better understanding of the processes responsible for the recent amplified warming is essential for assessing the likelihood, and impacts, of future rapid Arctic warming and sea ice loss13, 14. Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice-sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic2.
     

Share This Page