2019 CO2 emissions

[kassy]

But that is not in play here (not enough squares).

The doublings are a crude measure. Most relevant to us is the interface between the world we knew with the ice in place from where we get most of our measurements and data and other possible set ups for which we have much less data. I don´t really care about 2350 what more relevant is what will happen in the short term. What is liveable is relative and also depends on near future expectations. You can weather a bad year but not a bad decade.

We are already in overshoot mode so we should go to zero then negative asap.

[oren]

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.

What these graphs really show is that humanity blew up its last realistic chance of avoiding 1.5C back in 2000, and its last realistic chance of avoiding 2C back in 2010. If humanity starts mitigating now at a realistic() 4% per year, it will perhaps avoid 2.5C, perhaps 3C. And if humanity goes on with its ridiculously slow (but the real realistic) rate of mitigation (meaning emissions actually haven't even stopped growing), then 4C and 5C and 6C are the realistic outcomes.

[Bruce Steele]

And those temperatures will unlock carbon sources from current sinks. Hothouse earth looks like a serious possibility. We do not talk about what that means.
 Without putting you on the spot too much Oren, what would 10 or 12 look like . Is that a ridiculous
number to contemplate ?
 

[dnem]

There is only one way human emissions will start to come down: an economic collapse. The only slight kink in the curve occurred during the 2008/9 crisis.  Other than that it's been up, up and away. Oren, 4% per year negative deserves the most skeptical emoji there is. 

A 10 or 12 C rise is not something that any human would be alive to contemplate.  The only way to avoid even a 3 C rise is solar radiation management which I'd be surprised we don't have to try at some point.

[TerryM]

There is only one way human emissions will start to come down: an economic collapse. The only slight kink iin the curve occurred during the 2008/9 crisis.  Other than that it's been up, up and away. Oren, 4% per year negative deserves the most skeptical emoji there is. 

A 10 or 12 C rise is not something that any human would be alive to contemplate.  The only way to avoid even a 3 C rise is solar radiation management which I'd be surprised we don't have to try at some point.

Radiation management that is in direct conflict with PV, or any other energy generation scheme that relies on sunshine.


PV will still work to some extent, just not its rated capacity. Panel prices may drop, but installation, maintenance & cleaning costs will increase as efficiency drops. Is rooftop solar viable when solar radiation is lowered by 10%, 25%, or 1/3?
Does GW end when solar radiation is throttled back by 10%, 25% or 1/3?


Who will coordinate the effort(s)?
Who will pay the costs?
Who will enforce compliance, and avoid overshots?


I've  questions about the fate of wind and even reliable hydro generation under moderated skies.
Terry

[oren]

The "good" news indeed is the negative feedback of global economic collapse, even to the point of civilizational collapse. I expect such to happen long before 10C and 12C, even before 6C, both due to AGW and due to other carrying capacity issues (and continued population growth and increased consumption all the way into the storm). Such a collapse would drastically cut emissions, and the ensuing population reduction would bring about reforestation as well.

[nanning]

Re: Dimming of solar radiation via tech.

Not feasible in my opinion.
The enormous surface area to be covered would suggest that a thin sheet would be the only practical form. Well, until NASA, SpaceX etc. launch their GHG missiles rockets, puncturing or setting fire to the sheet
The sheet also has to counterrotate above the Earth. And cannot be magnetic and/or electric because of solar winds/storms and a shielding effect may disrupt communication with satellites. Also the astronomers will be furious.

Why not just use less energy and stop fossil energy? O well. Cowardice? Could well be, but definitely deep insanity.

[Rob Dekker]

Radiation management that is in direct conflict with PV, or any other energy generation scheme that relies on sunshine.

PV will still work to some extent, just not its rated capacity. Panel prices may drop, but installation, maintenance & cleaning costs will increase as efficiency drops.
...
Does GW end when solar radiation is throttled back by 10%, 25% or 1/3?

You are way off with your assumptions.

With that kind of reduction, you will drop Earth into a global deep freeze (snowball Earth).

To get some perspective : A doubling of CO2 (from 280ppm pre-industrial to 560ppm in the not too distant future) will cause a 3.7 W/m² Top Or Atmosphere (TOA) global radiative 'forcing'.
So you would need to drop solar irradiance by 4*3.7= 14.8 W/m² to compensate. The factor 4 comes from the relation between the surface of a sphere (4*pi*r²) versus the sun illuminating the disk of planet Earth (pi*r²).

Total solar irradiance at TOA is about 1361 W/m², so to compensate for a doubling of CO2, you only need to reduce solar irradiance by about 1%.

That 1% reduction is VERY hard to do though, and in my opinion would be NUTS to even try geoengineering of that scale, but even if it would be done, it for sure would not significantly impact the efficiency of solar PV installations around the planet.

[oren]

Theoretically it could be achieved by some form of sheet or parasol at the Lagrange points of gravitational equilibrium between the Earth and the Sun. Or by seeding the atmosphere with lots of sulfur or some other aerosol. But this is utter madness, with who knows what unintended consequences, requires very high costs and lots of global cooperation - while using less energy and/or deploying renewable energy in massive numbers require lower costs and a lower level of cooperation and are still barely done.

[nanning]

I think you mean the L1 Lagrange point between Earth and Sun.
From wikipedia:
L1 is about 1.5 million kilometers from Earth

The costs of building there (1.1 million Km beyond the orbit of the Moon) are magnitudes higher. Technical difficulties are magnitudes greater. Possible hypothetical timeframe therefore not to be expected within 20 years I think.

I strongly agree with you that these geo-engineering ideas are utter madness.

Slowly it becomes clear to more people that our 'leaders' and 'powerful people' really ARE deeply insane.
They are the donkeys (asses?) of the eternal growth/profit system: Fixated on the carrot in front. Submerged in, and enslaved to, the groupbehaviours of the extreme supremacy people. Those brains are incapable of sane thoughts. No conscience left. This is not a joke.

[gerontocrat]

Some may remember a Russian test effort to do the opposite, to warm and light up Siberia in winter.

A satellite was meant to unfurl an enormous mirror to reflect sunlight onto a patch of the Siberian winter snow. Fortunately it failed.

The Russians also had dreams of reversing the flow of the Siberian rivers to irrigate the steppes. Fortunately that failed also.

Count the ways mankind can really screw up the planet. AGW is merely one of many "success" stories.

[ArcticMelt2]

Yes, the construction of the space screen is a good solution. It is capable of cooling even solar probes to room temperatures from 2 thousand degrees. Has anyone seen the movie "Sunshine" about going to the Sun?

[dnem]

I certainly did not mean to imply the SRM would EVER be a good idea or something I would remotely endorse.  But, given that COP25 just collapsed, I'm not feeling real confident about my fellow humans' ability to come together and do what needs to be done in time.  So, desperate times will demand desperate measures.  Obviously I have no idea if it will come to pass, but I do think geo-engineering talk will ramp up as things goes downhill.

[ArcticMelt2]

Or by seeding the atmosphere with lots of sulfur or some other aerosol. But this is utter madness, with who knows what unintended consequences, requires very high costs and lots of global cooperation - while using less energy and/or deploying renewable energy in massive numbers require lower costs and a lower level of cooperation and are still barely done.

The cosmic mirror is much better than harmful sulfur aerosols, which will poison atmosphere and kill the biosphere, causing acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer. The main problem of the cosmic mirror remains that it is the most destructive weapon known. Therefore, to create such a technology will have to conduct long negotiations between countries on the control of the mirror.

[KiwiGriff]

We are at 1.2C now.
As the emerging economy's clean up their atmospheric pollution aerosols will reduce adding another 0.4C. 
The difference  between TCS and ECS adds another 0.6C.
Over 2C is our  future if we hold CO2e at its present levels.
Thirty years of talk and we have not even managed to stop the acceleration in  CO2.

It will take years for the true extent of  even our present climatic changes to emerge from the noise.
If what were 1000 year extremes have already become normal what does the new climate regimes 1000 year event look like ?

Humanity put your head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye. Its going to be bumpy ride all the way down.
.
.
.
 Then we Crash.

[crandles]

The costs of building there (1.1 million Km beyond the orbit of the Moon) are magnitudes higher. Technical difficulties are magnitudes greater. Possible hypothetical timeframe therefore not to be expected within 20 years I think.

First 200km and reaching orbital speed are difficult. Then there is very little difference between the extra to reach geosynchronous 36000km altitude and that to get to escape velocity.

Harder to build at 1.5 million km than just in orbit? Well maybe a little from extra lag in communications.

But magnitudes greater?  ... I don't see why.

At least with L1 sun earth it is only the sun watchers that are unhappy rather than all astronomers.

[Tor Bejnar]

At least with L1 sun earth it is only the sun watchers that are unhappy rather than all astronomers.

Put a really great telescope at L1 that points toward the sun (on the solar side of the mirror/screen).  Some of those sun watchers would be placated! 

[crandles]

The cosmic mirror is much better than harmful sulfur aerosols, which will poison atmosphere and kill the biosphere, causing acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer. The main problem of the cosmic mirror remains that it is the most destructive weapon known. Therefore, to create such a technology will have to conduct long negotiations between countries on the control of the mirror.

>much better than harmful sulfur aerosols
agree

>most destructive weapon known

Huh? Seems a little over the top if it is just a case of blocking sunlight at L1. Would have to be huge mirrors or lenses in earth orbit to have significant destructive effect. Directing sunlight onto solar farms in deserts and away from rest of desert might be beneficial but seems unlikely to justify the cost of such large mirrors/lenses so I doubt this will happen.

For L1 blocking, long negotiations on sharing cost and control may be necessary, but I am not sure this is particularly a showstopper compared to size of the cost of doing it. I doubt it will be a quick thing to design, launch and build so the negotiation time just adds a little to this.

[ArcticMelt2]

>most destructive weapon known

Huh? Seems a little over the top if it is just a case of blocking sunlight at L1. Would have to be huge mirrors or lenses in earth orbit to have significant destructive effect. Directing sunlight onto solar farms in deserts and away from rest of desert might be beneficial but seems unlikely to justify the cost of such large mirrors/lenses so I doubt this will happen.

The speed of light is 3 thousand times faster than the speed of nuclear missiles. The owner of the mirror can destroy entire continents in thousands of times faster than nuclear missiles. That is, the owner of the mirror will receive a huge military superiority of the first blow. Therefore, the development of such technologies causes great concern about provoking a new arms race.

[crandles]

>most destructive weapon known

Huh? Seems a little over the top if it is just a case of blocking sunlight at L1. Would have to be huge mirrors or lenses in earth orbit to have significant destructive effect. Directing sunlight onto solar farms in deserts and away from rest of desert might be beneficial but seems unlikely to justify the cost of such large mirrors/lenses so I doubt this will happen.

The speed of light is 3 thousand times faster than the speed of nuclear missiles. The owner of the mirror can destroy entire continents in thousands of times faster than nuclear missiles. That is, the owner of the mirror will receive a huge military superiority of the first blow. Therefore, the development of such technologies causes great concern about provoking a new arms race.

Did you read Rob dekker post #57 above? We are talking about well under 1% difference in solar radiation reaching Earth to get the effect we want and that is an enormous task. 1% will not "destroy entire continents", certainly not fast. Focusing all that light on one spot on Earth would be destructive, but as I was indicating, that ability is not going to be built. The much easier system to build would just block light not focus it.

[Shared Humanity]

Could we please talk about CO2 emissions?

[Rob Dekker]

You want to talk about CO2 emissions ?

We are now adding about 1530 Giga ton of CO2 per year to our atmosphere.
And that rate is still increasing.

Some people still think that geo-engineering is a solution.

I think they are nuts.

[edit]Fixed annual emission rate.

[nanning]

I agree Rob.
Back to CO_2.

"the report concludes permafrost ecosystems could be releasing as much as 1.1 billion to 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. This is almost as much as the annual emissions of Japan and Russia in 2018, respectively."

That's also much more than all of annual emissions of aviation. Emissions out of our control.

These CO_2 emissions are from living nature, out of our control, and increasing for the coming decades at least.
That's already 2 GT of CO_2 per year extra we cannot stop. However far humans reduce their emissions.
This will go on. And set off more tipping points I expect. "Earlier than expected"


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/10/arctic-may-have-crossed-key-threshold-emitting-billions-tons-carbon-into-air-long-dreaded-climate-feedback/

https://theicct.org/publications/co2-emissions-commercial-aviation-2018


EDIT: PETM was 2 GT carbon per year. Permafrost is already emitting almost 30% (2.2GT CO_2) of that.

[Rob Dekker]

Seriously.
How are we going to stop this ?
Or at least reduce it ?
Or even slow down the increase ?

[Tom_Mazanec]

RD:
We will collapse 99% chance.
Or earn our name of Homo sapiens 1% chance.

[Bruce Steele]

Nanning, The chart you posted has 30 GT carbon emissions but I believe we are only emitting 10 GT carbon or 36.7 GT CO2. It is still far more than rate of emissions during the PETM .
There are several ways for human fossil fuel emissions get to zero, none pleasant. None voluntary.

[nanning]

Yes, that's strange. It is a graph that was originally published in a nature article I think. Not sure about that. I got it from wunderground.
If they would mean CO₂ where they write "carbon", I would understand the graph.

From https://skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html:

The authors find that the maximum PETM rate of emission for organic carbon as the source is equivalent to 6.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, and for methane as the source, 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. For comparison: 2010 human-carbon emissions were 30.6 billion tonnes. So if organic carbon was the source, current emissions are almost 5 times faster than the PETM, and if methane, current emissions are rising 27 times faster. 

So from this I conclude that the graph I posted earlier is about CO₂ and not about C.
I will adjust my caption above the posted graph in my previous post. Thanks Bruce.

[nanning]

I can't make any adjustments to my earlier post. It seems locked! Strange.

My caption would now read "arctic permafrost already emitting between 50%-100% of PETM CO₂ emissions, and rising".


In this context, posted by AbruptSLR:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg241652.html#msg241652

"Tundra soil carbon is vulnerable to rapid microbial decomposition under climate warming", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2940

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2940.html

[oren]

I can't make any adjustments to my earlier post. It seems locked! Strange.

Following some significant profile deletions where members removed all their posts, Neven has added a 48-hour limit to editing and/or deleting posts.

[nanning]

Ah that explains it. Thanks oren, I'll try to remember.

edit: I don't understand how that limit would stop people from deleting all their old posts.

[Rob Dekker]

Nanning, the 30.6 Gton/year is for 2010, as you correctly quoted from scepticalscience.com.

It's now 9 years later, and despite all the hard work to contain the problem, we increased emissions to 36.7 Gton/year (Bruce's quote).

The problem is that this is mostly from the 2 billion or so on this planet with a 'middle class' or higher standard of living.

There are still another 5 billion poor people who would like some reasonable standard of living too, with a place to live that has lighting, heating and/or cooling, a mode of transportation, and a healthy food supply.

We CANNOT do that with fossil fuels, since we will cook (and choke) the planet.

So we better get REAL serious about renewables FAST.

[Sciguy]

Preliminary estimates of US emissions show a decrease of 2.1% for 2019, lead by an 18% reduction in coal-fired electricity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fell-slightly-in-2019/2020/01/06/568f0a82-309e-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell slightly in 2019
Jan. 7, 2020

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.1 percent last year almost entirely because of a sharp drop in coal consumption, according to the Rhodium Group, a private data research firm.

Coal-fired electric power generation, which had rebounded slightly in 2018, fell by a record 18 percent to the lowest level since 1975, the Rhodium study said. Coal burning produces carbon dioxide, which fuels climate change.

[JMP]

...and the next paragraph says:

But much of that reduction was offset by rising emissions from the use of inexpensive natural gas. And transportation emissions remained relatively flat while emissions from buildings, industry and other parts of the economy grew.

[emphasis mine]

Moreover, Houser said, “emissions are not falling fast enough to meet Copenhagen or Paris agreement targets without a significant change in public policy.”

... That puts the United States at risk of missing the 17 percent target it agreed to reach by 2020 under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, the Rhodium study said. In addition, U.S. emissions last year were still “a long way off” from the 26 percent to 28 percent reduction that the United States pledged to carry out by 2025 under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, the study said.

The Rhodium study comes after U.S. emissions in 2018 rose by 2.7 percent, so net U.S. greenhouse gas emissions ended 2019 slightly higher than at the end of 2016.

yes, I went cherry picking   

[Tor Bejnar]

Cherry picking, eh?

[TerryM]

That's a whole load of Premium Cherries you picked!


The Paris Accord was/is widely seen as insufficient.
When major emitters miss their commitments, (you can't really "unsign" a pledge to humanity), the only option becomes riskier & riskier geo-engineering schemes.


When you read, "by 2100 we'll have ..." - read it as "we'll never have ..."
When they say, "by 2050 our emissions will be ..." - hear it as "by 2050 the doors will have closed"
When they pledge that "by 2030 we'll have ..." - understand that "by 2030 it will be out of their hands"


Mix these cherries with data from the aerosol thread and you have a recipe for disaster. Shake in a portion of American belligerent and sprinkle with a few tactical nukes.
If the Big Boys stay in their silos, someone may live write our history.


It won't have a wide audience.
Terry

[Shared Humanity]

CO2 emissions in 2019 break record set in 2018.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-will-break-another-record-in-2019/

[grixm]

Wow! Latest daily CO2 reading was 415.79 ppm, higher than at any date last year. And it's still winter!

[gerontocrat]

The Carbon Clock** gives us 7 years, 11 months and 9days of carbon budget left to get to 1.5^o, based on emissions at 1,331 tons/second, 42.97 GT per year..

However, the latest estimate of emissions from The Carbon Project give 2019 emssions @ 43.1 GT per annum, i.e. 1,367 tons/second.

This gives us 7 years, 8 months and 26 days of carbon budget left to get to 1.5^o, i.e. over 2 months less left for the (mythical?) 1.5^o target..

And given recent years Global Temperature increases,  I, among others, have some doubts about that remaining Carbon Budget.
_______________________________________________________________
**  https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm?i=3267263%22%20style=%22width:600px;%20height:340px;

[Tor Bejnar]

So, 7 years and 8 months from now we'll instantly halt emissions and simultaneously quickly capture enough CO2 to counter the loss of aerosols.   ... And then still suffer the consequences of the AGW caused by the 1.5C rise.

It's been a while since I heard "350 or bust".  I guess we're more interested in "bust."

[TerryM]

So, 7 years and 8 months from now we'll instantly halt emissions and simultaneously quickly capture enough CO2 to counter the loss of aerosols.   ... And then still suffer the consequences of the AGW caused by the 1.5C rise.

It's been a while since I heard "350 or bust".  I guess we're more interested in "bust."

And this appears to be a "bust" of truly Partonesque proportions!
Terry

[Tom_Mazanec]

Maybe I should start a 2020 CO2 emissions thread?

[gerontocrat]

Maybe I should start a 2020 CO2 emissions thread?

Seems like a good idea to me. 2019 is so last year.

[blumenkraft]

I second that!

[Sciguy]

IEA shows energy-related CO2 emissions plateaued at 33 gigatons in 2019.

https://www.iea.org/news/defying-expectations-of-a-rise-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-flatlined-in-2019

Defying expectations of a rise, global carbon dioxide emissions flatlined in 2019
11 February 2020

Despite widespread expectations of another increase, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stopped growing in 2019, according to IEA data released today.

After two years of growth, global emissions were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes in 2019 even as the world economy expanded by 2.9%. This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power generation. Other factors included milder weather in several countries, and slower economic growth in some emerging markets.

A significant decrease in emissions in advanced economies in 2019 offset continued growth elsewhere. The United States recorded the largest emissions decline on a country basis, with a fall of 140 million tonnes, or 2.9%. US emissions are now down by almost 1 gigatonne from their peak in 2000. Emissions in the European Union fell by 160 million tonnes, or 5%, in 2019 driven by reductions in the power sector. Natural gas produced more electricity than coal for the first time ever, meanwhile wind-powered electricity nearly caught up with coal-fired electricity. Japan’s emissions fell by 45 million tonnes, or around 4%, the fastest pace of decline since 2009, as output from recently restarted nuclear reactors increased. Emissions in the rest of the world grew by close to 400 million tonnes in 2019, with almost 80% of the increase coming from countries in Asia where coal-fired power generation continued to rise.

Link to the data:

https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019

[TerryM]

^^
Thanks for the link Ken.


Some of the sub-links are interesting as they break down energy production and use in various countries.
Terry

[gerontocrat]

It ain't over until it's over..... from the Rhodium Group

It is what happens when you become the workshop of the world.

https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/
China’s emissions exceeded emissions from developed countries

In 2019, China’s GHG emissions passed the 14 gigaton threshold for the first time, reaching 14,093 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMt CO2e) (Figure 2). This represents a more than tripling of 1990 levels, and a 25% increase over the past decade. As a result, China’s share of the 2019 global emissions total of 52 gigatons rose to 27%.[1]

In 2019, China’s emissions not only eclipsed that of the US—the world’s second-largest emitter at 11% of the global total—but also, for the first time, surpassed the emissions of all developed countries combined (Figure 2). When added together, GHG emissions from all members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as well as all 27 EU member states, reached 14,057 MMt CO2e in 2019, about 36 MMt CO2e short of China’s total.[2]

But China is a large country, home to over 1.4 billion people. To date, China’s size has meant that its per capita emissions have remained considerably lower than those in the developed world. In 2019, China’s per capita emissions reached 10.1 tons, nearly tripling over the past two decades (Figure 3). This comes in just below average levels across the OECD bloc (10.5 tons/capita) in 2019, but still significantly lower than the US, which has the highest per capita emissions in the world at 17.6 tons/capita. While final global data for 2020 is not yet available, we expect China’s per capita emissions exceeded the OECD average in 2020, as China’s net GHG emissions grew around 1.7% while emissions from almost all other nations declined sharply in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While China exceeded all developed countries combined in terms of annual emissions and came very close to matching per capita emissions in 2019, China’s history as a major emitter is relatively short compared to developed countries, many of which had more than a century head start. A large share of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year hangs around for hundreds of years. As a result, current global warming is the result of emissions from both the recent and more distant past. Since 1750, members of the OECD bloc have emitted four times more CO2 on a cumulative basis than China (Figure 4). This overstates the relative role of OECD emissions in the more than 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures that has occurred since before the industrial revolution because a large share of annual CO2 emissions is absorbed in the earth’s carbon cycle in the decades after release. But China still has a way to go before surpassing the OECD on a cumulative contribution basis.