2019 CO2 emissions

[Tom_Mazanec]

As long ago as early December, 2018 it was reported that 2018 had hit an all-time record for CO2 emissions.
Do we have some early indications five months later how 2019 is trending?

[Jim Hunt]

Perhaps look in "2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels"?

[Tom_Mazanec]

I thought emissions is how much H. sapiens actually put into the atmosphere through burning gas, oil, coal, wood, etc. while the Mauna Loa levels reflect the exhalation of animals, fossil fuel burning, sequestering in plants, and other carbon cycles.

[rboyd]

Perhaps look in "2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels"?

Atmospheric levels represent the actions of all sources (natural and anthropogenic) and sinks, and there is a significant amount of natural variation (e.g. La Nina/El Nino). There is also the possibility of feedbacks increasing natural emissions and reducing sinks. So probably not a good link between the two, especially in the short-term.

Coal Usage
Maybe the best proxy is coal usage in China and India, as the increase in coal usage accounted for 70% of the rise in emissions in 2017 and 2018. Forecasts are for 4% growth in India coal usage ongoing and it looks like China is quietly building new coal-fired power stations, so they may not peak for quite a while. Coal consumption statistics are usually quite delayed in reporting though. I ignore any reduction due to increased natural gas usage, as the significantly underreported fugitive methane leaks make it as bad as coal (yes, that means that emissions grew by more than reported in 2018).

Wind and Solar Electricity Generation
Another could be the forecast for the increase in wind and solar electricity generation (not capacity addition which is very misleading due to differing capacity factors) versus the forecast increase in overall electricity generation (growing at about 2.5% per year). If the ratio is greater than 1 (currently less than 0.5) electricity generation is decarbonizing. I ignore hydroelectricity (growth limited and net up-front emissions due to construction and the flooding of vegetation) and the highly questionable bio-fuels (e.g. wood pellets may be just as bad as coal and therefore UK emissions probably did not fall by as much as claimed).

In 2017 humanity utilized approximately 22,000 Terawatt hours of electricity, wind provided 5% of that, and solar 2% of that. Their combined share grew by 1%, which was much less than the 2.6% growth in overall generation. The growth rate would need to treble to start decarbonizing. You can get the data for look-back IRENA (International Renewable Energy Association) and look-forward data from GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council) and Solar Power Europe. Their forecasts for 2019 (which are usually pretty good) point to slowing growth rates in wind and solar, so not decarbonization. Same to 2022.

Internal Combustion Engine Car Fleet
As long as this is growing (as it is rapidly in China and probably soon India, and slowly in the US and Europe) emissions will tend to increase, offset a little by more efficient engines (offset a lot by increases in the size of cars). In 2019 car sales may fall somewhat, but the overall ICE car fleet will continue to grow. Until EV's are a significant share of sales in the USA and Europe this increase will continue. Monthly sales numbers, and EV share, are published monthly. Still too low to reduce the ICE fleet in the USA and EU.

Sorry that its not that simple to do. I track these things in detail because it is necessary for my PhD, it can be quite a pain tracking down accurate (and not misrepresented) data. My take is that, short of a recession, emissions will increase between now and 2022.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/secret-coal-plants-reveal-chinas-strategy-of-the-green-mirage_2860707.html

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domestic-consumption-data.html

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/wind-solar-share-electricity-production.html

https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Mar/Capacity-Statistics-2019

https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2018/

http://www.solarpowereurope.org/global-market-outlook-2018-2022/

[Stephan]

Thank you for sharing your information sources and their relative weight and importance.
Please keep us updated if newer and more precise information is available and finally good luck with your PhD thesis :-)

[b_lumenkraft]

I track these things in detail because it is necessary for my PhD,

Good luck with that!

If it helps you, there are very accurate emission stats for Germany from Frauenhofer.

All coal plants >> https://www.energy-charts.de/emissions_de.htm?source=lignite&view=absolute&emission=co2&year=all

Percentage renewables >> https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share_de.htm

Solar and wind >> https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm?source=solar-wind&period=weekly&year=2019

Feel free to ask me for translation if necessary.

[rboyd]

Thankyou, actually google translate tends to do a very good job.

[b_lumenkraft]

Thankyou, actually google translate tends to do a very good job.

You are welcome R.

So cool Google translates even this site. Thumbs up! 

[Tom_Mazanec]

Well, I don't know if Google Translate does a very good job...I usually get just pretty good (although I admit it is slowly improving).

[rboyd]

Increase in lake emissions equivalent to 13% of fossil fuel related emissions due to "moderate levels of eutrophication" due to increased temperatures

We are rapidly getting to the point where cuts in anthropogenic emissions could be matched by increased sources and reduced sinks.The UNIPCC takes absolutely no account of this.

Our study shows that GHG emissions from lakes and impoundments are equivalent to ∼ 20% of global fossil fuel CO2 emission (9.3 Pg C‐CO2 yr−1; Le Quéré et al. 2016) and that emissions will rise even further with the continued eutrophication of Earth's lentic ecosystems.

[quote This analysis suggests that these moderate levels of enhanced eutrophication could increase the atmospheric effect of GHGs emitted from lakes and impoundments by 5%, 26%, or 42%, respectively (Supporting Information Table S7). This increased emission would be equivalent to around 1 Pg CO2eq yr−1 or about 13% of the effect of the current global emission of CO2 by the combustion of fossil fuels, and about equal to the excess CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from global land use change (Ciais et al. 2013).[/quote]

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lol2.10073

[wdmn]

Oilsands CO2 emissions may be far higher than companies report, scientists say
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oilsands-carbon-emissions-study-1.5106809

A number of major oilsands operations in northern Alberta seem to be emitting significantly more carbon pollution than companies have been reporting, newly published research from federal scientists suggests, which could have profound consequences for government climate-change strategies.

The researchers, mainly from Environment Canada, calculated emissions rates for four major oilsands surface mining operations using air samples collected in 2013 on 17 airplane flights over the area.

In results published today in the journal Nature Communications, the scientists say the air samples from just those surface mining operations suggest their carbon dioxide emissions are 64 per cent higher, on average, than what the companies themselves report to the federal government using the standard United Nations reporting framework for greenhouse gases.

...

The lead author of the paper, John Liggio of Environment Canada, was quick to point out that the lower emissions rates reported by companies are in no way due to data-toggling or dishonesty on their part. Instead, the differences between his team's estimates and previously reported numbers are related to methodology.

"They're just doing exactly what they've been told to do. They're not doing anything on purpose," Liggio said in an interview Monday.

[Juan C. García]

"NASA’s new carbon observatory is set for launch despite Trump’s efforts to ax it"

Trump slashed funding for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 and four other Earth science missions in his proposed spending plan for the 2018 fiscal year, citing “budget constraints” and “higher priorities within Science.” His budget for fiscal year 2019 tried to defund them again.
In both cases, Congress decided to keep the OCO-3 mission going anyway. Now it is set to launch as soon as Tuesday.
…
How is OCO-3 different than OCO-2?
The main purpose of OCO-3 is to make sure we have a continuous record of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, but we are adding some new capabilities. One of those is to take a snapshot of carbon levels over an area of 50 miles by 50 miles. This will feed a bunch of science investigations of emission hot spots, like cities or volcanoes.
We can also look at how plant activity changes over the course of a day, which is something OCO-2 could not do.

https://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-oco-3-orbiting-carbon-observatory-nasa-20190426-story.html#nws=true

[ASILurker]

Co2 in 2050 mentioned previously. I found this via Mako Hansen who regularly update their data grpahs; eyeballing this graph looks like near 550 ppm CO2 about 2050 at RCP 8.5; and out to 2075 looks like ~700 ppm increasing at 6ppm/yr avg.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Long-Term Annual Means with IPCC Scenarios
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/GHGs/

Data: CO2 (Data through 2018, Last updated 2019/03/06)


Whereas an annual CO2 increase of 3 ppm/yr would bring CO2 to about 500 ppm by 2050;
an avg. 2.5 ppm /yr increase would make it ~487 ppm by 2050.
(the 2019 projected base at 410 ppm global mean)

[Tom_Mazanec]

How 2018 CO2 emissions rose:
https://www.axios.com/us-carbon-emissions-paris-agreement-withdrawal-92528859-4ca7-4346-b826-cc835ab02076.html

EDIT: 2019 second highest CO2 rise so far:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/04/latest-data-shows-steep-rises-in-co2-for-seventh-year

EDIT 2: Norway emissions up, unlike rest of EU:
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2019/06/eu-co2-emission-significantly-decreased-2018-not-so-norway

[morganism]

Thermal Decomposition of CO2 with Nuclear Heat

http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/06/thermal-decomposition-of-co2-with.html

" We find that at 3000K, 40% of CO2 molecules break up into CO and O particles. The fraction becomes 50% at 3600K. Carbon monoxide has an even higher thermal decomposition temperature, beyond 3800K.

At 4000K, we can expect that from every 1 mole of CO2, we get 0.15 moles of carbon, 0.5 moles of oxygen and 0.2 moles of CO. Each mole of CO2 fully broken up requires to 530kJ. This corresponds to 12 MJ per kg of CO2 that is decomposed.

Thankfully, nuclear heat is in no short supply. Even small reactor cores can produce gigawatts of thermal energy… indeed, most of the cost of a nuclear reactor comes from the difficulty of containing the heat, not in producing it. "

The first step is therefore to filter out the dust, cool the air to condense out water vapor, and then liquefy CO2 by compressing it to over 25 bars at below room temperature. The liquid CO2 rains out of the compressed gas and can be drained away.

[oren]

All of this to reverse the emission of CO2 from the fossil fuel plant next door? Best not to emit the stuff in the first place.

[interstitial]

Thermal Decomposition of CO2 with Nuclear Heat

So Nuke fossil fuel plants?

Hmmmm........
That might work (Just kidding)

[Tom_Mazanec]

Emissions keep going up:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/11/atmospheric-carbon-levels-are-leaping-we-cant-afford-many-more-years-like-this

[Sciguy]

US CO2 emissions projected to decrease in 2019.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=2637.0;last_msg=205211

U.S. Sees Rare Fall In Energy-Related CO2 Emissions In 2019

By Julianne Geiger - Jul 15, 2019, 10:00 PM CDT

The decrease in coal-derived energy in favor of natural gas-derived energy has the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that the CO2 emissions in the United States will fall in 2019, according to a new report by the agency on Monday.

In the year prior, energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States had increased by 2.7%.

The EIA is basing this optimism for lower CO2 emissions on the mild temperature forecasts for the remainder of the year, which it expects will keep energy demand below that of 2018.

“EIA forecasts that CO2 emissions from coal will decrease by 169 MMmt in 2019, the largest decrease in CO2 emissions from coal since 2015,” the EIA said.

Picking up some of that slack is an expected increase in natural gas C02 emissions of 53 MMmt as the mix of coal shrinks and natural gas grows in the overall energy mix. C02 emissions from petroleum is expected to be flat in 2019.

“Because the electric power sector consumes nearly 92% of the coal used in the United States, expectations for both overall lower electricity demand and a lower share of coal-fired electricity this summer lead EIA to forecast lower coal CO2 emissions.”

[DrTskoul]

Thermal Decomposition of CO2 with Nuclear Heat

http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/06/thermal-decomposition-of-co2-with.html

" We find that at 3000K, 40% of CO2 molecules break up into CO and O particles. The fraction becomes 50% at 3600K. Carbon monoxide has an even higher thermal decomposition temperature, beyond 3800K.

At 4000K, we can expect that from every 1 mole of CO2, we get 0.15 moles of carbon, 0.5 moles of oxygen and 0.2 moles of CO. Each mole of CO2 fully broken up requires to 530kJ. This corresponds to 12 MJ per kg of CO2 that is decomposed.

Thankfully, nuclear heat is in no short supply. Even small reactor cores can produce gigawatts of thermal energy… indeed, most of the cost of a nuclear reactor comes from the difficulty of containing the heat, not in producing it. "

The first step is therefore to filter out the dust, cool the air to condense out water vapor, and then liquefy CO2 by compressing it to over 25 bars at below room temperature. The liquid CO2 rains out of the compressed gas and can be drained away.

Where the hell are you going to get 4000K in a Nuclear reactor? in the molten core of one??.... sometimes I wonder if we understand what we read and write....For comparison the surface of the sun is 5000K. Let's send all our CO2 to the sun....

[Stephan]

Where the hell are you going to get 4000K in a Nuclear reactor? in the molten core of one??....

I am no expert in nuclear power plants. Maybe the Chernobyl' or the Fukushima plants saw temperatures like this while they collapsed??   

[rboyd]

US CO2 emissions projected to decrease in 2019.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=2637.0;last_msg=205211

U.S. Sees Rare Fall In Energy-Related CO2 Emissions In 2019

By Julianne Geiger - Jul 15, 2019, 10:00 PM CDT

The decrease in coal-derived energy in favor of natural gas-derived energy has the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that the CO2 emissions in the United States will fall in 2019, according to a new report by the agency on Monday.

In the year prior, energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States had increased by 2.7%.

The EIA is basing this optimism for lower CO2 emissions on the mild temperature forecasts for the remainder of the year, which it expects will keep energy demand below that of 2018.

“EIA forecasts that CO2 emissions from coal will decrease by 169 MMmt in 2019, the largest decrease in CO2 emissions from coal since 2015,” the EIA said.

Picking up some of that slack is an expected increase in natural gas C02 emissions of 53 MMmt as the mix of coal shrinks and natural gas grows in the overall energy mix. C02 emissions from petroleum is expected to be flat in 2019.

“Because the electric power sector consumes nearly 92% of the coal used in the United States, expectations for both overall lower electricity demand and a lower share of coal-fired electricity this summer lead EIA to forecast lower coal CO2 emissions.”

If we ignore/downplay the level of CH4 fugitive emissions, as the US EIA etc do, then everything is fine. Using a reality lens we can see the bullshit disinformation for what it is. The CO2e of the GHG emissions as a whole will go up, and thats all that counts. CH4 is actually worse than CO2 for short-term warming, and the possibility of triggering/exacerbating feedbacks.

Natural Gas = a bridge to disaster

[Sciguy]

US CO2 emissions projected to decrease in 2019.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=2637.0;last_msg=205211

U.S. Sees Rare Fall In Energy-Related CO2 Emissions In 2019

By Julianne Geiger - Jul 15, 2019, 10:00 PM CDT

The decrease in coal-derived energy in favor of natural gas-derived energy has the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that the CO2 emissions in the United States will fall in 2019, according to a new report by the agency on Monday.

In the year prior, energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States had increased by 2.7%.

The EIA is basing this optimism for lower CO2 emissions on the mild temperature forecasts for the remainder of the year, which it expects will keep energy demand below that of 2018.

“EIA forecasts that CO2 emissions from coal will decrease by 169 MMmt in 2019, the largest decrease in CO2 emissions from coal since 2015,” the EIA said.

Picking up some of that slack is an expected increase in natural gas C02 emissions of 53 MMmt as the mix of coal shrinks and natural gas grows in the overall energy mix. C02 emissions from petroleum is expected to be flat in 2019.

“Because the electric power sector consumes nearly 92% of the coal used in the United States, expectations for both overall lower electricity demand and a lower share of coal-fired electricity this summer lead EIA to forecast lower coal CO2 emissions.”

If we ignore/downplay the level of CH4 fugitive emissions, as the US EIA etc do, then everything is fine. Using a reality lens we can see the bullshit disinformation for what it is. The CO2e of the GHG emissions as a whole will go up, and thats all that counts. CH4 is actually worse than CO2 for short-term warming, and the possibility of triggering/exacerbating feedbacks.

Natural Gas = a bridge to disaster

I agree with you on that.  The existing coal plants need to be shut down and replaced with renewables.  That's being planned right now, with the shutdowns due to occur in the early to mid-2020s.

There's a lot of natural gas infrastructure out there already though, and if it replaces coal, the immediate impacts are big reductions in CO2 which stays in the atmosphere for centuries.  The methane gets scrubbed out of the atmosphere within 10 to 20 years.  So if we replace the existing natural gas infrastructure when it reaches the end of it's useful life, we're better off than having continued to burn coal.

Better yet would be to have a Federal Government run by someone serious about climate change.  They could put strict restrictions on natural gas leakage and ensure that we get the full benefit of the switch from coal to natural gas as my next post will explain.

[Sciguy]

There's no disputing that natural gas is a lot less carbon intense than coal, so burning it instead of coal emits less CO2.  The problem is that natural gas is mostly methane and that being careless about leaks in the system can result in higher CO2 emissions.  If the amount of methane that leaks during drilling, distribution and burning the natural gas is more than 3%, the benefit of switching from coal is lost.  If the leakage is more than 4%, than the higher heat warming potential of methane means that in the short term, the climate impacts are worse than burning coal.  The following article explains it.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/08/is-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel/

Overall, carbon dioxide emissions from new gas power plants are as much as 66 percent lower than those of existing coal power plants. About half of this reduction is due to differing carbon intensities of the fuels (natural gas emits 40 percent less carbon than coal per unit of heat). The other half is due to the higher generation efficiency of natural gas (new natural gas plants convert heat to power at upwards of 50 percent efficiency, while typical coal plants only operate at about 33 percent efficiency).

But not all natural gas produced is burned. Some of it is leaked at gas wells, in compressor stations, from pipelines, or in storage. Methane is a powerful but short-lived greenhouse gas. While it is in the atmosphere, it is around 120 times more powerful than carbon dioxide per ton, but it quickly decomposes through chemical reactions and only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will remain after 20 years.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has a much longer atmospheric lifetime. About half of the carbon dioxide emitted today will be around in 100 years (and virtually none of the methane will be), and about 15 percent of today’s carbon dioxide will still be in the atmosphere in 10,000 years.

This difference in longevity makes a comparison between the two tricky. Essentially, how much methane emissions today matter for the climate depends largely on the timeframe you are considering. If you care about avoiding warming later in the century (as the United Nations does with its 2°C warming by 2100 target), there is relatively little problem with short-term methane emissions, as long as they are phased out in the next few decades. If you care about short-term changes, however, methane is a much bigger deal.

Also, there is a lot methane trap in coal deposits and released during coal mining.  That isn't taken into account in the above discussion.

[gerontocrat]

Also, there is a lot methane trap in coal deposits and released during coal mining.  That isn't taken into account in the above discussion.

There are installations in urban locations in the UK that are still collecting methane emitted from coalmines closed down 30 years ago. About the only places you can still see a sign"National Coal Board".

I guess in the USA and elsewhere the old coal mines just burp the stuff into the sky.

[Sciguy]

The following study contains a recent estimate of the amount of methane emitted from coal mines in China.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2054/htm

Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 2054; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072054

Exploring Gaps between Bottom-Up and Top-Down Emission Estimates Based on Uncertainties in Multiple Emission Inventories: A Case Study on CH4 Emissions in China

Penwadee Cheewaphongphan *, Satoru Chatani and Nobuko Saigusa

Received: 14 March 2019 / Accepted: 28 March 2019 / Published: 6 April 2019

Abstract: Bottom-up CH4 emission inventories, which have been developed from statistical analyses of activity data and country specific emission factors (EFs), have high uncertainty in terms of the estimations, according to results from top-down inverse model studies. This study aimed to determine the causes of overestimation in CH4 bottom-up emission inventories across China by applying parameter variability uncertainty analysis to three sets of CH4 emission inventories titled PENG, GAINS, and EDGAR. The top three major sources of CH4 emissions in China during the years 1990–2010, namely, coal mining, livestock, and rice cultivation, were selected for the investigation. The results of this study confirm the concerns raised by inverse modeling results in which we found significantly higher bottom-up emissions for the rice cultivation and coal mining sectors. The largest uncertainties were detected in the rice cultivation estimates and were caused by variations in the proportions of rice cultivation ecosystems and EFs; specifically, higher rates for both parameters were used in EDGAR. The coal mining sector was associated with the second highest level of uncertainty, and this was caused by variations in mining types and EFs, for which rather consistent parameters were used in EDGAR and GAINS, but values were slightly higher than those used in PENG. Insignificant differences were detected among the three sets of inventories for the livestock sector.

3.2. Assessment of CH4 Emissions from the Coal Mining Sector

China is one of the world’s major coal producers [32]. According to records of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), about 12,000 coal mines are in operation in China (as of 2014), and these are mainly bituminous coal operations, with only some involving anthracite and lignite. These mines are located in 28 provinces, particularly in the North region, except for the anthracite mines, which are mostly found in the Central region [32]. About 17% of the mines belong to state-owned coal mine groups (which accounts for a total of 61% of coal production), and 83% of mines are owned by villages and towns (which account for about 39% of coal production) [33]. Most of the mines in China are underground mines, and there are only a few open pit mines [33]. Both types of active coal mines have emissions from four sources, including mining (ventilation and degasification), post mining (handling, transport, and storage), oxidation, and uncontrolled combustion (the fires that occur from the heat), which are significantly higher in underground mines [34]. Mining and post mining activities are the major sources of CH4 emissions, for which the quantity mainly depends on the ranking of coal and the mining depth [35,36]. The 2006 IPCC GLs [34] provide the principles for estimating fugitive emissions from coal mining for Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels, as presented in Equation (4), and these emissions are based on the amount of raw coal production by mine types, the EF for each process and each mine, and the CH4 recovery.

With the variation of all parameters, there is an uncertainty of emission estimations of about 10%–33%, which accounts for CH4 emissions in the range of 16.4–23.0 Tg.

For comparison, estimates of the amount of methane leaking from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which have people stressed out in another thread, range from 2 to 17 Tg per year.

So eliminating coal mining would more than offset the methane emissions from the ESAS, and significantly reduce our CO2 emissions as well.

[Sciguy]

This study published in Science in 2018 found that methane emissions from the US natural gas industry were about 13Tg per year.  That's lower than the annual emissions from China's coal mines.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186

Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain

Ramón A. Alvarez, et. al

Science  13 Jul 2018

Abstract

Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain were estimated by using ground-based, facility-scale measurements and validated with aircraft observations in areas accounting for ~30% of U.S. gas production. When scaled up nationally, our facility-based estimate of 2015 supply chain emissions is 13 ± 2 teragrams per year, equivalent to 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. This value is ~60% higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate, likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions. Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO2 from natural gas combustion. Substantial emission reductions are feasible through rapid detection of the root causes of high emissions and deployment of less failure-prone systems.

[wili]

"That's lower than the annual emissions from China's coal mines."

Wow, how low exactly do we want to set that bar! ?

[RoxTheGeologist]

Also, there is a lot methane trap in coal deposits and released during coal mining.  That isn't taken into account in the above discussion.

There are installations in urban locations in the UK that are still collecting methane emitted from coalmines closed down 30 years ago. About the only places you can still see a sign"National Coal Board".

I guess in the USA and elsewhere the old coal mines just burp the stuff into the sky.

or they burn....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire

[Sciguy]

The US EPA has good information about methane emissions from coal mines at their website.

https://www.epa.gov/cmop/frequent-questions#q2

6. How much methane is emitted from coal mines?

U.S. coal mines emitted nearly four billion cubic meters or 61 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTC02E) in 2015. Between 1990 and 2015, U.S. emissions decreased by 40 percent, in large part due to the coal mining industry's increased recovery and utilization of drained gas and decrease in ventilation air methane emissions.

By 2020, global methane emissions from coal mines are estimated to reach nearly 800 MMTCO2E, accounting for 9 percent of total global methane emissions. China leads the world in estimated coal mine methane (CMM) emissions with more than 420 MMTCO2E in 2020 (more than 27 billion cubic meters annually). Other leading global emitters are the United States, Russia, Australia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and India.

[gerontocrat]

Not so good.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-4-during-first-half-of-2019

Guest post: Why China’s CO2 emissions grew 4% during first half of 2019

Very informative, but I've read enough bad stuff today

[Tom_Mazanec]

17 periods of 4% growth means a doubling,

[nanning]

Almost Tom. Almost. 

[rboyd]

Almost Tom. Almost. 

18, rule of 72. But still really bad news.

[rboyd]

Airlines' CO2 emissions rising up to 70% faster than predicted
Carbon dioxide emitted by commercial flights rose by 32% from 2013 to 2018, study shows

Researchers said the rate of growth far exceeded that used to develop projections for CO2 emissions by the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization.

The ICCT report says: “The implied annual compound growth rate of emissions, 5.7%, is 70% higher than those used to develop ICAO’s projections that CO2 emissions from international aviation will triple under business as usual by 2050.”

The total increase over the past five years was equivalent to building about 50 coal-fired power plants, the ICCT calculated. The study shows the UK is responsible for 4% of global aviation CO2 emissions, behind only the US (24%) and China (13%).

Domestic flights in the US and China account for a quarter of all aviation emissions. The US, China and EU account for 55% of all emissions.

A forecast released by Airbus on Wednesday said the number of commercial aircraft in operation would double to 48,000 planes worldwide by 2038. It predicted urbanisation and an emerging middle class would fuel rapid growth, particularly in the Asia-Pacific.

...BUT "offsets" and Technology will save us

“That is why from 2020 all growth in international aviation CO2 will be offset, reducing carbon by millions of tonnes a year. And by 2050 we aim to cut total emissions to half the 2005 level, using a combination of sustainable fuels and radical new technologies.”

The transport secretary, Grant Shapps, called on the UK aviation industry to take the lead in introducing electric flight. In a speech at Cranfield University in Bedford on Thursday, he said: “We need to get to grips with commercial aviation greenhouse gas emissions for the sake of our children and our fragile environment.”

He said aviation “supercharges our economy, drives prosperity, jobs and tourism and helps promote Britain’s interests globally … But with aviation set to grow significantly over the next three decades, largely driven by rising demand from emerging markets, particularly Asia, the Middle East and India, I want to pave the way for the transition towards commercial use of cleaner electric planes.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/19/airlines-co2-emissions-rising-up-to-70-faster-than-predicted

[gerontocrat]

The Carbon Clock

In line with the recent IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) has updated its Carbon Clock. In 2015, with the Paris Climate Agreement, all nations around the world set themselves the goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C (preferably 1.5°C) compared to pre-industrial levels. An ambitious goal.

https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html

They quote a figure of CO2 emissions as 42 GT per annum. Fossil fuel emissions are 37-38 GT per annum. Damned if I can find tabulated historical data on the 4 to 5 GT of non-fossil fuel emissions.

Also the budgets quoted are from the IPCC data - < 9 years current emissions for +1.5 celsius,
                                                                         = 26 years current emissions for +2 celsius.
Optimstic.

Also if I add 4-5 GT for non-fossil fuel CO2 emissions, my calculations on sequestering by the carbon sinks will look much more hopeful.

https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm?i=3267263%22%20style=%22width:600px;%20height:340px;

[Sciguy]

^^^
I think the IPCC SR on 1.5C used CO2 equivalent, which includes other greenhouse gases whereas that website with the clock left off the "eq".

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Limiting warming to 1.5°C depends on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next decades, where lower GHG emissions in 2030 lead to a higher chance of keeping peak warming to 1.5°C (high confidence). Available pathways that aim for no or limited (less than 0.1°C) overshoot of 1.5°C keep GHG emissions in 2030 to 25–30 GtCO2e yr−1 in 2030 (interquartile range). This contrasts with median estimates for current unconditional NDCs of 52–58 GtCO2e yr−1 in 2030. Pathways that aim for limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100 after a temporary temperature overshoot rely on large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, which are uncertain and entail clear risks. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).1 For limiting global warming to below 2°C with at least 66% probability CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range). {2.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.5, 2.5.3, Cross-Chapter Boxes 6 in Chapter 3 and 9 in Chapter 4, 4.3.7}

[gerontocrat]

Looks like we are going to fry a little bit more slowly.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/04/paris-climate-deal-world-not-on-track-to-meet-goal-amid-continuous-emissions
CO2 emissions are still increasing globally, but the rate of increase has declined

Emissions for this year will be 4% higher than those in 2015, when the Paris agreement was signed.

Joeri Rogeli, a lecturer in climate change at the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said: “CO2 emissions wiggle from year to year, but it is the long-term trend that is important. The small slowdown this year is really nothing to be overly enthusiastic about. If no structural change underlies this slowdown, science tells us that emissions will simply gradually continue to increase on average.”

[kassy]

Natural gas has seen the fastest fossil fuel emissions growth in 2019, with a projected increase of 2.6 per cent (+1.3 to +3.9 per cent). Oil used in transport is also driving emissions up, with a projected increase of 0.9 per cent (+0.3 to +1.6 per cent) this year, while emissions from coal burning are projected to decrease by 0.9 per cent (-2.0 to +0.2 per cent).

...

EU28 emissions are projected to decline by 1.7 per cent (-3.4 to +0.1 per cent) in 2019, with a projected decrease of 10 per cent in coal-based emissions, accelerating a trend of -5.1 per cent per year since 2013. Electricity generation from coal has dropped by 22 per cent through October compared with 2018, due to a sharp rise in the price of carbon in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme combined with additional policy factors. Consumption of both diesel and jet kerosene continue to increase, leading to a projected increase in emissions from oil products of 0.5 per cent in 2019. Natural gas consumption continues to grow (+3 per cent), although at a highly variable rate across EU member states.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-12/uoea-gce120219.php

First paragraph is for the world.

[nanning]

When some of the many many 'tipping points' start emitting GHG, they won't stop and more tipping points will be crossed.
what a gamble to not follow the precautionary principle

Emissions from living nature will accelerate.
Destruction/extinction of living nature/ecosystems will accelerate. (trend)

I think the above gives a true picture of our existential trouble.
Civilisation should give all it has to try to stop this from escalating.

[gerontocrat]

Staying at or below 1.5°C requires reducing global greenhouse gas emissions  to 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030

In 2010 CO2 emissions from fossil fuels & industry were circa 33 GT + **land-use changes 5 GT = 38 GT
In 2018 CO2 emissions from fossil fuels & industry were circa 37 GT + **land-use changes 5 GT = 42 GT

(**assumes no change)

So how are we doing in 2019? I sent an e-mail to ENERDATA.com
I got an answer. 2019 emissions from energy estimated to rise by 1 to 1.5% in 2019.
The main conclusion for me is that the drop in CO2 emissions from the reduction in coal + increase in energy from renewable sources is less than the increase in CO2 emissions from growth in Natural Gas and oil.

So assume
In 2019 CO2 emissions from fossil fuels & industry were circa 37.5 GT + **land-use changes 5 GT = 42.5 GT

For total CO2 emissions to reduce by 45% by 2030,
- 2030 total emissions down to 21 GT,
- 2030 emissions from fossil fuels & industry 16 GT (assumes no change in land-use changes)

That is a reduction of 58% in CO2 from fossil fuels & industry from 2019 to 2030..

It also assumes that emissions from land-use changes will not increase and the carbon sinks will not deteriorate.

Meanwhile..
Climate change: UN negotiators 'playing politics' amid global crisis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50706236

[kassy]

It also assumes that emissions from land-use changes will not increase and the carbon sinks will not deteriorate.

Which they will.

Arctic permafrost is a net contributer at least since 2003:

winter carbon dioxide loss from the world's permafrost regions could increase by 41% over the next century if human-caused greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current pace. Carbon emitted from thawing permafrost has not been included in the majority of models used to predict future climates.

...

Researchers estimate a yearly loss of 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon from the permafrost region during the winter season from 2003 to 2017 compared to the estimated average of 1 billion metric tons of carbon taken up during the growing season.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2546.msg236823.html#new
post 50 (top page 2)

And sadly we need the Amazon for cattle exports...oh wait we don´t, we need it to survive...or if that is a too dramatic way to put it we really need the cloud seeding and the sequestered carbon to stay there. 

Meanwhile in Madrid: politics...

[wolfpack513]

With 2019 emissions estimates now in, we’ve got updated mitigation curves with remaining carbon budgets. 

Bunny slopes to black diamonds in the last few decades.  2.0°C & 1.5°C targets. 

[crandles]

This seems to apply to above.

I don’t think this sort of thing is really all that helpful as it gives no clue as to how realistic any of the pathways are. It seems that this sort of graph is basically motivated by a political assertion (“let’s not let warming exceed X degrees|”) rather than any plausible understanding of the world we live in. I also don’t think it is very realistic to think that the world will design and implement carbon emissions policies that credibly aim at a particular max temperature change, at least not within my lifetime. So, here’s an alternative question that although still rather simplistic is (IMO) more directly relevant to the real world. Let’s assume we are able decarbonise at some given rate. How much difference does it make how soon we start?

from
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2019/01/blueskiesresearchorguk-costs-of.html

eventually get to the comment:

Well I suppose I can just do the 1.9% pa compound increase in CO2 emissions unabated, which gets us to 66000 ppm CO2 by 2350 with a temp rise of 12C and a GDP increase to only 600 times present (a little over half the results plotted). Scary enough for you?

(I don't think the GDP result is particularly credible when extrapolated out to such a strong warming. 12C warming really would be the end of the world as we know it!)

so perhaps that isn't very useful either.

[Tom_Mazanec]

66000 ppm means only 12˚ C warming? I find it hard to believe it would be that low.

[crandles]

66000 ppm means only 12˚ C warming? I find it hard to believe it would be that low.

66000 is around 7.4 doublings from 400ppm. 7.4 doublings at 3C per doubling is 22C of equilibrium warming but as the CO2 concentration is increasing right up to the end of 2350 then not all of that warming will have appeared. At 1.9% increase per annum it only takes 36 years to double the CO2 but well over 100 years for the oceans to warm in response so as a very rough and ready calculation I could imagine there being in the region of 14C of warming with a further 8C of warming to come. Seems to me like 12C may be a little on the low side but maybe not crazily out.

Where I find more disagreement is 410*1.019^330 = 204000 ppm of CO2 in 2350. So 12C definitely on the low side for 204ppt.


Not at all sure the 12C (or maybe 18C is more realistic with 204000ppm) temperature rise is relevant: if CO2 at 66000 causes serious health problems and at 204000ppm is lethal we don't need to consider whether we will all be killed twice by CO2 and by temperature.


The point is more:

I don't think 0.25c/decade is really an invitation to delay. We've only had 1C actual warming in the past century. Anyway I would rather know the number (together with some sensitivity analyses etc) than not.

and is this a better way of expressing it than the 'We will have to de-carbonise twice as fast if there is only a small delay in order to keep to the same temperature limit' type argument.

[dnem]

Er, not sure assuming an ECS of 3 will hold through SEVEN doublings of CO2 belongs in a science thread!

[crandles]

Er, not sure assuming an ECS of 3 will hold through SEVEN doublings of CO2 belongs in a science thread!

I am sure there is some uncertainty in that. However compared to the GDP will be 'only' 600 times the current level, I would much rather bet on the temperature figure being plausible rather than the GDP figure.

In which thread was bintho claiming that GDP was predictable?     

[crandles]

Earth would be about 30C cooler with no GHGs.

First 1 ppm of CO2 has about 3C effect. Then each doubling having 3C effect gets us to 512pp CO2 and a temp about similar to now. Of course there are other GHGs and aerosols etc so I don't expect it to work perfectly but in ball park terms it works OK. That is over 9 doublings, so why would 7 doublings be a problem?

[nanning]

That's 7 MORE doublings, i.e. 16.

The Pharao thought he got a cheap deal, with only having to pay a handful of grain from the chess board.