« National Biodiesel Board Issues Winter Weather Advisory on Fuel Quality | Main | New Zealand Coal Producer Investigating CO2 Storage Potential for Coal-to-Liquids CCS »
New Analysis Shows Recent 4x Growth in Rate of Global CO2 Emissions
12 November 2006
 |
| Global CO2 emissions gap. Click to enlarge. Source: GCP. |
The global growth in the rate of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels was 4 times greater in the period between 2000 to 2005 than in the preceding 10 years, according to an analysis by the Global Carbon Project, a component of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP).
Despite efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the global growth rate in CO2 has climbed to 3.2% in the five years to 2005 compared to 0.8% in the period 1990 to 1999, according to the data presented. The data puts carbon dioxide emissions over the last five years as tracking close to the A1B emission scenario from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to the GCP analysis.
This is a very worrying sign. It indicates that recent efforts to reduce emissions have virtually no impact on emissions growth and that effective caps are urgently needed.
—Dr Mike Raupach, Chair of the Global Carbon Project
The A1 scenarios describe a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter and, in several variations of it, the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. A1 is subdivided into A1FI (fossil-fuel intensive), A1T (high-technology), and A1B (balanced). A1FI generates the most CO2 emissions and A1T the least—but even A1T sees a near doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 2100.
 |
| Change in global average temperature under different scenarios. Click to enlarge. Source: Arnell,Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change |
The A1B scenario assumes that 50% of energy over the next century will come from fossil fuels, and leads to unacceptably high atmospheric CO2 concentrations resulting in, according to some estimates, a temperature increase of almost 3° C in global average temperature by 2100 compared to 1990. (See chart at right.) Other projections put the A1B temperature increase at 4° C.
On our current path, we will find it extremely difficult to rein in carbon emissions enough to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentration at 450 ppm and even 550 ppm will be a challenge. At some point in the near future, we will miss the boat in terms of achieving acceptable levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
—Dr Josep Canadell, Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project
Due to the phenomenon of environmental inertia, even when anthropogenic emissions do begin to decrease, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise for up to as much as a century. Global temperatures will continue to increase for an even longer period, locking the world into continuing climate change. Effective management of Earth system inertia depends on early and consistent actions, notes the ESSP.
The analysis was commissioned by UNESCO and was presented at an ESSP conference in Beijing and at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 12) meeting in Kenya.
Resources:
November 12, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (55) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6800688
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Analysis Shows Recent 4x Growth in Rate of Global CO2 Emissions:
Comments
..but this doesn't matter because the insignificant amount of NOx emitted by vehicles is more important!
Posted by: kb | Nov 12, 2006 8:55:53 AM
kb,
NOX is also a GHG, and very powerful to boot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Nitrous_oxide_in_an_atmosphere
http://www.ghgonline.org/nitrousoxide.htm
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 12, 2006 9:09:32 AM
..but this doesn't matter because the insignificant amount of NOx emitted by vehicles is more important!
Right - let's all choke on smog and PMs to "save" the planet.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 12, 2006 9:27:16 AM
I'm curious what accounts for this huge increase. I've seen numbers that indicate that over the same period, the United States only increased something like 1.5-2%. What's the breakdown? What are the sources?
Posted by: Cervus | Nov 12, 2006 9:28:35 AM
In the near future, there will be a big increase in the number of vehicles in China. So I think China will cause huge emissions of CO2 by 2020.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 12, 2006 9:39:29 AM
China, India are where the major gains are coming from.
Posted by: Andy | Nov 12, 2006 9:40:30 AM
CFCs, PFCs (ie CF4, C2F6, etc), SF6, and HFCs are other GHG, some may last for thousands of years.
___SF6 is used in electrical equipment, and for semiconductor etching, and emitted during aluminum smelting. As much of the third world electrifies/modernise, the potential for increased rate of release goes up. It has an atmospheric life of ~3,200 years, and GWP(100yrs) of ~22,000 (1=CO2).
___PFCs are also in use (refrigerant, fire extinguisher), and are long life (50,000 yrs) powerful GHGs (GWP(100) ~5,700.
___If these two get away from us, there will be grave consequences.
On a side note, proposals for terraforming Mars usually call for the release of SF6, PFC, or other powerfull, long life SuperGHGs.
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 12, 2006 9:55:56 AM
Besides India and PEC, there is the rest of humanity, another 2-3 billion people. As the world population grows ~50% (9 billion) by 2050, there will likely be a parallel economic growth, and consequently a rise of GHG.
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 12, 2006 9:59:50 AM
...India and PRC...
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 12, 2006 10:00:34 AM
China, India are where the major gains are coming from.
China, yes. India, no. The US is #2 in terms of recent gains, and India is #3. The US increase is almost double that of India.
South Korea, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Spain, and Japan round out the Top 10.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 12, 2006 10:12:17 AM
Pizmo I thought besides us (The U.S.)the question was where were the major CO2 gains coming from... China, India. But yes China whith their cars, and coal are making huge enviro consequences. Scientific American just did a special issue on 'Energy Future Beyond Carbon'. The section on coal and China was very interesting and worrying. I still love Startech powered by wind credits to provide our fuel and empty our landfills.
Posted by: Andy | Nov 12, 2006 10:24:17 AM
The GOP may be up to something to fix GHG, but it may not come to pass:
http://www.slate.com/id/2153390
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 12, 2006 10:28:25 AM
When everybody emits as much CO2 & GHG per capita as Americans and Canadians it will be the right time (if not too late) to move to another planet.
We are most probably amongt the worse polluters. It would be unfair of us to insist that China and India (and others) stay at their present very low per capita GHG level.
We have given the bad example for more than 100 years. We, the current and future major polluters, have to reduce our unsustainabe high (total) GHG emission level by 2% to 4% every year. We can do it if we want to.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 12, 2006 10:59:34 AM
In the Scientific American special edition mentioned by Andy, there is an article which says that the number of vehicles worldwide is expected to triple by 2050 !
Now we have 750 million, and, by 2050 could be about
2250 million !!
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 12, 2006 11:01:53 AM
NOX is also a GHG, and very powerful to boot.
NOx normally refers to nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO, NO2), not nitrous oxide (N2O). The former are removed from the atmosphere on a timescale of days, precipitating as nitrous or nitric acids, so they are not significant greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, N2O doesn't form a similar acid with water, and is stable in the atmosphere for many decades. Being isoelectronic to CO2, it also has a similar IR spectrum, except the absorption features are nowhere near as saturated, meaning the effect of a change in concentration is much larger.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Nov 12, 2006 11:47:16 AM
Harvey D.,
I liked your comment.
One example of helping to reduce GHG would be, if anyone really needs a SUV, don´t buy V8-powered SUVs, prefer 4-cylinder ones.
And if you do not really need a SUV, buy an station wagon.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 12, 2006 12:01:21 PM
The estimates of required reductions in greenhouse gases range from 60 to 90%. Just buying a 4 cylinder SUV is a rather inadequate response to the problems that will occur if we continue business as usual.
Posted by: t | Nov 12, 2006 12:58:52 PM
My bad, I should state N2O, instead of NOX.
_
Interestingly, aluminum production, from ore, also produces PFC, namely CF4, and C2F6.
http://www.world-aluminium.org/iai/publications/documents/pfc2001.pdf
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 12, 2006 2:03:58 PM
China and their coal use could be part of the increase. I heard they start up a new power plant every week. However, with global warming, the tundra and perafrost melt and outgas CO2 and methane. This is one of the big "toggle" points climate scientist look for.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 12, 2006 2:30:16 PM
I thought besides us (The U.S.)the question was where were the major CO2 gains coming from... China, India. But yes China whith their cars, and coal are making huge enviro consequences.
And why is their economy growing so quickly? Check out our trade deficit.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 12, 2006 3:47:45 PM
t,
I know the problem will not be solved just by buying a
4-cylinder SUV insted of a V-8, but, in the short term, this can help a lot if many people do not acquire V8 vehicles.
In my case, as I do not need a big car, I will buy a Toyota Yaris instead of a VW Golf. The Yaris consumes considerable less gasoline than the Golf.
A friend´s Yaris gets 35 MPG in the city and more than
45 MPG in the highway.
Here in México there are not Golf diesel.
There are Jettas diesel but the VW service for the diesels is very expensive and it is not reliable in every VW dealer.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 12, 2006 4:17:11 PM
t,
I know the problem will not be solved just by buying a
4-cylinder SUV insted of a V-8, but, in the short term, this can help a lot if many people do not acquire V8 vehicles.
In my case, as I do not need a big car, I will buy a Toyota Yaris instead of a VW Golf. The Yaris consumes considerable less gasoline than the Golf.
A friend´s Yaris gets 35 MPG in the city and more than
45 MPG in the highway.
Here in México there are not Golf diesel.
There are Jettas diesel but the VW service for the diesels is very expensive and it is not reliable in every VW dealer.
Posted by: Jorge | Nov 12, 2006 4:17:12 PM
Why point fingers at China and India for doing exactly what we have been doing for a few decades. We emit many times the CO2 and GHG per capital. They have a lot of catching up to do.
Once we have reversed the trend for a few years, we may boast about it, but we are not there yet. Canada's GHG is still increasing about 5% per year and may be much worse with tar sands acitivities tripling in the next few years.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 12, 2006 5:07:14 PM
My bad, I should state N2O, instead of NOX.
Yet an increasingly important source of N2O does derive from NOx -- incomplete reduction in the 3-way catalytic converter. This is especially problematic when the cat is cold or worn out.
Posted by: dt | Nov 12, 2006 5:27:15 PM
The argument "The USA did it, therefore China has a right to do it too" fails on one essential:
If China does it, the world (including China) is toast.
The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase allows no room for anyone of any consequence to keep increasing emissions. Everyone's emissions need to head downward. This means that all nations, China included, should cease the construction of all powerplants and other facilities which emit carbon. They know how to build refineries and chemical plants, they can build sequestering IGCC powerplants. Since China is a command economy they can do it much faster than the USA can.
China actually has an advantage going into a carbon-free future, because they have a smaller installed base than the US, Europe, Australia etc. have. There's no excuse for them to either destroy the globe or demand payment for making an excruciatingly difficult job even harder.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Nov 12, 2006 6:16:05 PM
But we all know how much we have to keep our US shopping malls full of cheap made in china mdse. for a successful holiday season- talk about the mounting external costs!
Posted by: FYI co2 | Nov 12, 2006 7:06:03 PM
Engineer-Poet:
Yes: I guess you are right. Americans and Canadians (and other long time polluters) should carry on buying more SUVs and Hummers. Chinese and Indians should stick to tri-cylcles, Dutch to bicycles and Africans can walk.
It may not fly that way for very long. At least, I hope not.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 12, 2006 8:49:59 PM
Indians don't care. So you guys don't need
to worry about them.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1841660,0094.htm
Posted by: argod | Nov 12, 2006 9:48:29 PM
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 13, 2006 4:03:01 AM
You do realize that junkscience.com is run by Steven Milloy, a former tobacco lobbyist?
Anyone who takes Milloy's output as anything but paid ads for his financiers deserves what they get.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Nov 13, 2006 5:56:45 AM
As for Americans, Harvey, I think we should have motor-fuel prices high enough to eliminate the SUV segment and make cars like the Loremo and Tesla roadster into hot sellers. Changing the USA's installed base will take time, but we have no excuse for making things worse either.
As for Africans and Chinese, let them both manufacture electric bicycles. They'll find a good export market in the USA.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Nov 13, 2006 6:03:05 AM
Forget China and India. US is the main offender, period.
China's economic activity and concordant emissions exponential increase is based 100% on exports to US. In fact it is precisely because US wants to use cheap labor and cheap (dirty) energys from China that it shipped most of its manufacturing to China. It was and still is US choice and China has nothing to do with it, except being a compliant accomplice. US can at any time choose to bring back mahufacturing home and develope, utilize and implement cleaner technologies to reduce emissions while maintaing production levels it needs. Of course, this choice involves sacrifices and is more difficult, lower profits, hence they don't bother.
Same goes for Canada. While Canada needs more energy just to survive its winters, the biggest emissions jump is from Albert'a oil sands. Guess where is this "dirty" oil going. US? Bingo!
So inifinite US demand for oil has pushed Alberta to start processing oil sands which require some much work and energy that it is probably one of the dirties energy sources, maybe worse even than coal. First Alberta burns a lot of energy just to extrat that oil, then the oil itself is burned in US. Hence we have a North American tag team working hard to pump out yet more CO2. And just for a good measure, US sends a bunch of planes and APCs to Iraq to burn yet more oil in yet another pointless war.
The bottom line is US along with Canada have to lead by example, walk the walk and shut the h... up. All the conferences and bogus promises (Kyoto) will have a net zero effect. Instead North America has to start putting real money into the technology as well as impose real penalties on dirty tek. Only when the financial picture changes in favor of green tek then industry will take notice.
Otherwise, ... well Mother Nature can do for us. Florida and the Gulf get bashed by hurricanes on a regular basis, more floods and mud slides, ice/snow storms in North East, etc. The only difference is between targeted man made penalties (such as tarriffs on dirty tek) or natural disasters that are indiscriminate. Either way we pay. It is just a matter of whether we get bashed real hard or not.
Oh well, looks like we'll have to lean the hard way :(:(:(
Posted by: q | Nov 13, 2006 7:25:42 AM
As for China, they started with largely car free cities and blew it, attempting to base much of their miracle growth on an auto based economy. Accordingly, they have ruined their cities and are in the process of becoming the biggest co2 emitter on the planet. They had the advantage of seeing what the western world did to their cities and landscape but decided to repeat this fiasco, anyway.
This, of course, does not let us off the hook and we should, of course, find a way to transition to a largely car free economy, to include housing that requires zero net energy to heat and electrify.
China damn well knows we are running out of oil but is casting their net all over the world to try to ensure adequate oil supplies. Well, it ain't gonna happen no matter how many oil countries they smooze up to or how many wells they drill. They are just engaging in the ultimately hopeless folly that we are engaging in, trying to extract blood or oil from the proverbial turnip or stone.
The U.S. needs to commit to redutions in energy use of at least 60% by 2030 with a clear enforceable plan and strtegy to get there. Then we can be in a better position to "suggest" ways that China can stop their inexorable march to coal fired planetary disaster.
Posted by: t | Nov 13, 2006 7:25:52 AM
All the talk won't much matter if we reach the melting tundra/permafrost CO2 outgas tipping point. That cascade will put us over the top before we know it.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 13, 2006 8:06:42 AM
Rollingstone has an article in the current issue about the guy
who came up with Star Wars (SDI) is now working on saving
the good life by spraying SO2 on the North pole using 747s.
I tried to find a link but couldn't. So don't worry the Pentagon
is working on the problem.
Posted by: argod | Nov 13, 2006 8:54:11 AM
q, t, and SJC:
Well said, you have identified where it all came from. Unfortunately, the average American-Canadian super heavy polluter does not admit it, and may never will, unless...
There are no 10 ways about it. The cost of polluting has to go up as did the price of smoking cigarettes before we will react. That's how we are.
I my younger days, a gallon of fuel oil and a pack of cigarettes were about the same price, as low as 10 cents in the early 1960's. Forty years latter, the pack of cigarettes has multiplied 80 times but fuel oil price has multiplied only 25 times.
Both being a deadly source of pollution, they should be taxed about the same rate. This would put the gallon of fuel oil at about $8 instead of $2.00 - $2.50. Gasoline being more refined should be taxed a bit more, let's say at about $9/gal.
Raising the gas tax too quickly may be too disruptive and we would certainly rise up against such common sense. A well advertised progressive Federal tax of about 3 to 5 cents/gal/month could raise the price of gas and diesel fuel by about $5/gal in 8.3 to 13.9 years.
Most of us would sooner or latter decide to buy Prius and low consumption vehicles instead of gas guzzling SUVs. People using fuel oil for heating their resisdence and industries would soon switch to electric heating or natural gas and use more efficient HVAC. The new 23-SEER air conditionners/heat pumps use a lot less energy than the old 10-SEER units.
As Oil consumption goes down, the basic price will fall and Tar Sands activities would be reduced accordingly.
GHG would be reduced progressively as gas guzzlers are progressivly removed from our roads and streets and chimneys are torn down.
The extra $billions++ from the new tax could be used to promote cleaner energies, low consumption vehicles and to reduce income taxes for people with low income (below $50K/Yr).
Since we are the initial source of the problem we have to come up with and apply the solutions. Pointing the fingers to others while we carry on as usual is both dishonest and futile.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 13, 2006 9:19:13 AM
Engineer-Poet:
You said:... ''as for Aficans and Chinese, let them both manufature electric bucycles. They will find a good export market in the USA''...
China has already produced over 10 million electric bicycles (and the batteries) for local consumption. Their production is being raised from 5 to 10 and 20 million per year. They will probably flood the world market within 3 years. USA (lobbies and politicians) may manage to boycott their import for many years.
As for their production in Africa, it represents a real chalenge. Beside South Africa, almost none of the 50+ countries on that continent have what is takes to produce high quality electric bicycles and their batteries. Secondly, most of them don't have access to an electric grid to recharge the batteries and they can't afford solar panels. Low cost electric bicycles + batteries + solar panels would be a real asset for the 900 millions living there. The average worker walks 10 miles (2+ hours)to go to work. Returning home on very hot humid days is painful.
I heard that China may build a few electric bicyles + batteries + solar panels factories in Africa in exchange for Oil.
What a bright idea. What are we doing to help? Selling them more gas guzzlers? Supporting local dictators in exchange for Oil?
We have a huge attitude problem.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 13, 2006 9:54:38 AM
With the latest U.K. report about global warming harming the world's economies, we may start to look at that as well as renewable energy industries being good for the economies. When it is a winning situation, now matter how you look at it, people may start to do good in addition to doing well.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 13, 2006 11:44:10 AM
I think all these discussions about what the world could do to mitigate climate change are counterproductive. Everyone should know damn well by now that emissions arent going to be curbed; They're going to grow until the fossil fuels start to dwindle. It would be far more productive to discuss the anticipated effects of climate change and measures to deal with negative effects and maximize utility of positive effects.
And its still important to remember that the easiest reduction in fossil fuel emissions would be replacing coal and natural gas electric baseload power with nuclear power.
Posted by: Dezakin | Nov 13, 2006 1:28:15 PM
GHG caused global warming is just a theory and a very bad one at that! With the cold war over, it looks the Socialist needed a new idea (cause) to keep their dead ideology going. It must be fun to blame the USA for all the earth’s problems. Renewable energy and B.E.V. will have their day in the future. So stop dreaming about people giving up their SUVs for your misguided views. People will stop driving their over sized cars when it gets to expensive to due so, but don’t count on the politicians raising gas taxes. Politicians are only interested in staying in power and getting re-elected, but high gas prices/taxes will get them booted from office.
Posted by: JD | Nov 13, 2006 1:31:36 PM
GHG caused global warming is just a theory
Yawn...
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 13, 2006 1:52:31 PM
dt -
the amount of N20 produced by road vehicles is negligible, even with the present (European) trend toward turbocharging downsized gasoline engines which produce some in the combustion chamber.
By far the overwhelming amount of N20 is produced by gas turbines, such as those in combined-cycle power plants run on natural gas and those powering jet aircraft. The latter are especially problematic as they release the GHG compound in the stratosphere where it can linger for much longer. Emissions near the ground are more likely to decay due to greater availability of surfaces that promote the necessary reactions.
Road vehicles do emit air conditioning fluids, though, especially those that are exported to third-world countries where they are unlikely to ever be recycled properly. About 50% of old European cars end up in Africa, most without draining the refrigerant first.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 13, 2006 3:42:34 PM
Pizmo says - GHG caused global warming is just a theory - Yawn...
At least the whole GHG thingy gives you something to live for and someone else to hate.....
Posted by: JD | Nov 13, 2006 3:42:50 PM
JD, you sound like one of the idiots who claimed that CFC's didn't damage the ozone layer or smoking didn't cause cancer.
If you believe what you say, you're a fool. If you don't believe it, you're a troll (and an ass). Neither one reflects well on you.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Nov 13, 2006 3:45:28 PM
At least the whole GHG thingy gives you something to live for and someone else to hate....
Whatever, trollboy. Go somewhere else with your childish garbage, please.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 13, 2006 3:46:15 PM
As always people fixate on the wrong thing. The suv. Its not the suv its the road. Back in the 80s you didnt face as much stop and go traffic. It doesnt matter if your in a small car or amlarge one witout byrid tech all cars get 0 mpg in a traffic jam. And the size and number of traffic jams and slow traffic has escalated massively. Wasting bilions of barrels of fuel.
Most svs get BETTER milage then the old vans, trucks. and battlewagons they replaced. ,psy people who own suvs will go out of thier way to only use em when needed because of course they cost alot to fuel. Just as they used vans and old battelwagons and trucks before then.
The rest of the people.. the rich or semi rich oo suvs are in oh wait now they are out crowd is swapping to other "trendy" transports so they wont matter for long... assuming that new tenedy transport realy is better then an suv...
And america is slipping not so questly not so nicely into a post industrial state. It doesnt realy matter anymore.
But china and india and africa and asia and south america sure as hell do matter. And they arnt listening to you.
Even if they were we still are too late to stop perminent and drastic climate changes.we were too late before we were even born.
But FACTS like that dont go over well now do they?
Spend a trillion busks upheave all the industries get blamed for all the losy jobs piss off the soccer moms get blamed for accdeints get blamed for this get blamed for that.. blame blame blame.
Neither side can survife the blame.
And you talk about china.. china is doing what its doing precicely because it cant survive as a nation unless it gets its ass in gear and builds up before the end. India china and many other nations have gloamed onto this dark and absolute fact. They either do it now or they fall.
No matter how bad globalwarming and climate change gets its better for china then what happens if china fails to build up before oil runs out. THAT is a cold hard fact you cant erase you cant negotiate. They must reach thier goal before a very real DEADline.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 13, 2006 5:12:04 PM
As always people fixate on the wrong thing. The suv. Its not the suv its the road.
Partly, but it's mostly the shift in the mix of the national new vehicle fleet from being 84/16 in 1980 to 50/50 today.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 13, 2006 5:27:36 PM
Where does this claim of an acceleration in atmospheric CO2 concentration come from. It seems to be simply false. Take a look at the data:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php
There has been no sudden acceleration.
Posted by: Lucretius | Nov 13, 2006 5:43:04 PM
Where does this claim of an acceleration in atmospheric CO2 concentration come from.
There is no such claim. Read what it said.
From the very beginning of the post:
"The global growth in the rate of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels was 4 times greater in the period between 2000 to 2005 than in the preceding 10 years...."
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 13, 2006 9:41:21 PM
By far the overwhelming amount of N20 is produced by gas turbines,
No, by far the overwhelming amount of N2O comes from agriculture and the biosphere, where it is produced by denitrifying bacteria in the soil and oceans. IIUC, about 7% of the available nitrogen processed by soil bacteria is lost as N2O. Think of the huge quantities of N fertilizer applied worldwide each year.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Nov 14, 2006 2:46:15 AM
Where does this claim of an acceleration in atmospheric CO2 concentration come from.
There is no such claim. Read what it said.
From the very beginning of the post:
"The global growth in the rate of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels was 4 times greater in the period between 2000 to 2005 than in the preceding 10 years...."
BUT IT AIN'T SO. LOOK AT THE NOAA DATA.
Posted by: Lucretius | Nov 15, 2006 11:15:24 AM
How many people here expect humans to realy manage to do much before climate change itself does the work for us by royaly blitzing our asses to bits?
I currently expect we have 0 chance of doing anything to prevent climate change from doing us.
Posted by: wintermane | Nov 15, 2006 3:23:54 PM
NOAA doesn't provide data on emissions from fossil fuels. Like I said, please pay attention to what the words say. NOAA tracks CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, not emissions -- especially from specific sources.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 15, 2006 5:24:46 PM
O.K. You are right. There's been an apparent change in the rate of change, i.e., the second derivative of the rate of change. But that has had no measureable impact of the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and it is unlikely to have any long-term significance.
Such an increase in the rate of change could persist only if the rate of global economic growth has recently quadrupled or the efficiency with which energy is used has recently sharply decreased -- which would be a reversal of a long-term and predictable trend in the opposite direction.
Posted by: Lucretius | Nov 16, 2006 2:32:08 PM
Oops, one more correction. I should have said unless the rate of increase in the growth of the global economy has recently tripled. But even that seems most unlikely. At least it is unlikely to be sustainable.
Posted by: Lucretius | Nov 16, 2006 2:46:35 PM
