Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Science => Topic started by: JimD on November 01, 2013, 08:35:37 PM

Title: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 01, 2013, 08:35:37 PM
I didn't want to skew Bruce's Carbon Cycle thread and could not find a topic for which emissions was the main item so I started another one.

A new report is out on carbon emissions for 2012.  It is interesting to note the positive spin being put on by the BBC when they state

Quote
Global emissions of carbon dioxide may be showing the first signs of a "permanent slowdown" in the rate of increase.

When the report itself states that

Quote
Actual global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) reached a new record of 34.5 billion tonnes in 2012. Yet, the increase in global CO2 emissions in that year slowed down to 1.1% (or 1.4%, not accounting the extra day in the leap year), which was less than half the average annual increase of 2.9% over the last decade. This development signals a shift towards less fossil-fuel-intensive activities, more use of renewable energy and increased energy saving...

...Three countries/regions remain responsible for 55% of total global CO2 emissions. Of these three, China (29% share) increased its CO2 emissions by 3%, which is low compared with annual increases of about 10% over the last decade. Although China's CO2 emissions per capita are comparable to those in the EU and almost half of the US emissions per capita, its CO2 emissions per USD in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are almost double those in the EU and the United States and similar to those in the Russian Federation. In the United States (16% share) CO2 emissions decreased by 4%, mainly because of a further shift from coal to gas in the power sector. The European Union (11% share) saw its emissions decrease by 1.6%, mainly due to a decrease in energy consumption ( oil and gas) and a decrease in road freight transport.

One data point being justification for announcing a permanent slowdown in the rate of increase.  I guess.

A good sign and what prompted the positive spin was the fact that the increase was only 1.4% and was about 1/2 the rate of GDP increase.  This increase being a significantly lower rate then the GDP increase is being attributed primarily to the increase in hydro power in China (3 Gorges?) and increased use of natural gas in the US.  Unless China is building a lot of hydro power 2012 might be a one off anomaly and the increased use of natural gas in the US being sustainable is questionable.  It will be interesting to compare 2012 to 2013 this time next year.

I draw your attention to the following data however.

1990 Global Mt emissions CO2 equivalent was 38258 Mt
2010 Global Mt emissions CO2 equivalent was 50101 Mt

2012 is not calculated yet but will be approx. 52000 Mt

We could be doing better I think.


http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report (http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770)

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: domen_ on November 04, 2013, 03:48:06 PM
We could be doing better, but it's good news nonetheless. We'll see what happens in 2013.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: deep octopus on November 04, 2013, 08:13:50 PM
I'm not very sanguine about United States' figures, since it appears much of the emissions decline is due to switching from coal to natural gas. Obviously, on face value, it's good that carbon dioxide emissions are dropping, but it looks like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul as we risk serious harm to aquifers and natural lands from frackmania. More "progress." That said, there is a continued, strong momentum for renewables that still looks quite robust.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: GeoffBeacon on November 06, 2013, 11:13:07 PM
Jim

It's sad to have to criticise the BBC but I haven't been happy with their climate reporting for a long time. I even registered http://tweetstothebeeb.com (http://tweetstothebeeb.com) which points to my BrusselsBlog, where I recorded the tweets.

I can't follow some of it myself now but you can gauge my annoyance.

You too?

P.S. If you do a video relevant to the Committee on Climate Change do look at my latest posts on my http://BrusselsBlog.co.uk (http://BrusselsBlog.co.uk)  Can you make it clearer? My stuff there is a bit convoluted.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ritter on November 06, 2013, 11:29:39 PM
Another article confirming we're heading in the wrong direction with our emissions.

Quote
Greenhouse Gases Have Soared to Record Levels: WMO
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenhouse-gases-have-soared-to-record-levels-wmo-16705 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenhouse-gases-have-soared-to-record-levels-wmo-16705)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 09, 2013, 02:45:59 PM
Geoff

Thanks for asking but I am not qualified to straighten out layman like confusion on statistics.  In general even scientifically oriented folks struggle with understanding such themselves and almost no one seems to be really good at explaining it to others.  Tamino seems to be the expert most committed to trying.  Maybe you could ask one of the local math professors there in the UK to help you.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Jim on November 13, 2013, 03:41:56 PM
Hmm... a decline in CO2 rate-of-increase? The current levels seem to have gone a bit wild  :)
Both The Keeling Curve (http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) and Trends in Carbon Dioxide  (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html) show a quite sudden rise in CO2 levels, as measured from Mauna Loa.
I've graphed the recent levels from The Keeling Curve site:-

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 13, 2013, 04:16:39 PM
Jim

The number quoted above was for yearly total CO2 emissions.  Your chart is showing ppm levels of CO2 and your spike in them is over a period of a couple of days.

Both are interesting conversations but they are not about the same kind of data.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 15, 2013, 08:20:08 PM
This seemed to be the most relevant thread.

Australia drops its commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

Quote
(theguardian.com) – Tony Abbott has confirmed that his government has abandoned its longstanding policy to reduce Australia's emissions by between 5% and 25% of 2000 levels by 2020 – a crucial and internationally scrutinised goal that had retained bipartisan support since 2009, throughout Australia's tumultuous political debate over climate policy....

Being an American I am the pot calling the kettle black.  But we can expect a number of places to take this tactic politically as the claim that "Why should we do it if others are not?" will always resonate.  Since Australia is the continent that will be hit hardest by climate change it would seem that it would be in their best interest to act unilaterally and be an example to others.  Not to mention their extremely high per capita historical carbon emissions should carry some extra responsibilities.  But I am the pot and we here in the US should be making a different statement then we are currently making as well.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/11/australia-prime-minister-abandons.html (http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/11/australia-prime-minister-abandons.html)   

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/11/australia-prime-minister-abandons.html (http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/11/australia-prime-minister-abandons.html)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 15, 2013, 09:25:24 PM
Hmm... a decline in CO2 rate-of-increase? The current levels seem to have gone a bit wild  :)
Both The Keeling Curve (http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) and Trends in Carbon Dioxide  (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html) show a quite sudden rise in CO2 levels, as measured from Mauna Loa.
I've graphed the recent levels from The Keeling Curve site:-

You are confusing emissions of carbon with levels of CO2. All systems have both flows and stocks. All growth systems with either growing or level flows will result in an exponential growth in stocks. (Think of the effect of compounding interest rates on wealth.)
So long as carbon emissions grow, we will have exponential growth rates in the levels of CO2.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 16, 2013, 01:19:06 AM
Well, I'm an American and why do I sometimes feel like I'm on my 25th bomber mission over Nazi Germany? I know I'm going to catch flak ahead, but my course and mission has already been determined. Why do they retire people after 25 missions? It's because the odds of surviving 25 missions aren't that good. Who was monitoring carbon emissions during those ashes to ashes days?

America to me is the fine group of people from all over the world who came here to live. We had ties to other nations during WWII, but weren't involved until attacked. The war ended with the destruction of Europe and Japan that needed to be rebuilt and that destruction wasn't on our soil. In time, new operations were built in the modern standard, while America supplied the world when it couldn't supply itself.

The history of my country and other places like Canada and Australia involves people figuring out how to travel long distances and producing a product. Often that product was shipped to Europe, so it wasn't just Americans consuming it. Perhaps we should put that into the equation and figure out who the pig is! Americans are wasteful, but American industry involves more than feeding Americans.

I'm one of the few environmentalists who doesn't support a carbon tax or anything similar to it. I want cheap, non-carbon energy for my world and I believe it's possible. I don't want someone somewhere suffering because I can have a little bit more; I'm not that heartless. Their wellbeing is my wellbeing in my eyes. If a carbon tax or anything similar becomes law, I say give the money to the poor who can't afford to waste carbon and aren't the problem.

Lordy, lordy, I'm over forty, ha hmm.   
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 16, 2013, 04:41:24 PM
Another one bites the dust

Japan Ditches Pledge To Lower Emissions In Midst Of U.N. Climate Talks

Quote
With the 19th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change underway, Japan, the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter and third-biggest economy, made unwelcome headlines by announcing that its slashing its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reductions target from 25 percent to just 3.8 percent based on 2005 figures. ....

Quote
...Japan’s new target, announced by Minister of the Environment Nobuteru Ishihara in Tokyo, represents a 3.1 percent increase from 1990 if that year is used as a baseline. In contrast, the country’s previous commitment, set in 2009, sought to reduce emissions 25 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels...

Well that didn't take long.  Playing catch-up with Australia.  Who's next?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/15/2948341/japan-ditches-emissions-target/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/15/2948341/japan-ditches-emissions-target/)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 17, 2013, 03:18:59 AM
"Who's next?"

Looks like Canada is:

Canada reveals climate stance

Quote
Canada has dropped any remaining pretences of supporting global action on climate change by urging other countries to follow Australia's example in gutting its climate plan.

In a formal statement, the Canadian government said it "applauds" the move by Australia this week to repeal a carbon tax on the country's 300 biggest polluters.

"Canada applauds the decision by prime minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian prime minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message," the formal statement from Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, said.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/canada-climate-australia-carbon-tax (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/canada-climate-australia-carbon-tax)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 17, 2013, 03:55:40 AM
The intelligent people who wanted a carbon tax wanted the money given to the people not wasting energy, which are the poor. My strategy is to make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs. We can convert to that method in about ten years and start retiring those dinosaur industries, including our nukes to a new generation of processes generating energy that doesn't pollute our atmosphere with CO2 or anything. We just have to be determined to do it.

We can start now or wait until the next shoe falls.

What about the good folks over in Denmark and Norway? How do you want to make your stand?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 17, 2013, 06:35:31 AM
"make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs"

Don't you mean "so cheap, we don't have to meter it"

Oops, that ones already been used before.

Never mind.  :)

Really, if you still think the great goal is to increase human access to energy (so we can do even more of all the wonderful things we've been doing to the living planet with all the vast amounts of energy we've been granted so far), perhaps you haven't been paying quite enough attention.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 17, 2013, 10:03:56 AM
"make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs"

Don't you mean "so cheap, we don't have to meter it"

Oops, that ones already been used before.

Never mind.  :)

Really, if you still think the great goal is to increase human access to energy (so we can do even more of all the wonderful things we've been doing to the living planet with all the vast amounts of energy we've been granted so far), perhaps you haven't been paying quite enough attention.

Go play with the kids, wili! Are you claiming the only way to make energy is to make CO2?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 17, 2013, 03:39:19 PM
I play with my kid every day! :)

You missed my point entirely.

No matter what its source, CO2-producing or not, providing humans (aka the kudzu monkey) with vast new sources of energy is not likely to end well either for the rest of the living planet or, ultimately, for the humans themselves.

As Einstein pointed out long ago, and it has become only more so, human technical capabilities have far outstripped human collective wisdom to know how to (and when not to) use the same.

Recall that we were well along the path of trashing ecosystems even before AGW really go going.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 17, 2013, 03:43:58 PM
Wili rightly points to the fact that cheap energy has always facilitated many of the worst traits of human behavior, chief among them triggering rapid growth in the population.  Even at todays high energy prices and in the face of climate change our growth rate is sufficient to add 2 billion more people by 2050.

Human actions, even in the absence of climate change considerations, are still putting us way beyond the carrying capacity of the earth, we are slowly killing off the oceans, eliminating a wide range of critical resources, losing top soils at a high rate, poisoning the air and land with thousands of hazardous chemicals, exterminating species, etc, etc. 

Wili is talking about the fact that cheap energy will not save us and is more likely to make things worse (think of its impact on consumption).  Only a change in basic human behaviors will save us. And there is not much prospect of that.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 17, 2013, 04:07:01 PM
Here is another interesting article on potential emissions.

Brazil intends to increase the acreage of palm oil plantations by a very large amount. Perhaps as much as 50 million acres (yes 50 million).  These plantations will have an impact on carbon emissions.

Quote
...We found that converting 22.5 million hectares of land can produce approximately 29 billion gallons (110 billion liters) of biodiesel a year....

...This direct land use emission alone can be higher than the carbon intensity of diesel that it intends to displace for lowering greenhouse gas emissions...

Note that the direct land use can result in emissions greater than standard crude oil production.  To get the total emissions one would have to add in the indirect uses resulting from the creation  of the palm oil plantations.

Depending on the mix of land used, forest, range, soiled land, wetland, etc, a wide range of carbon emissions are possible.  Strict enforcement of land use will be essential to keep carbon emissions low.  A kind of enforcement that has always proved unworkable in Brazil.  Adding to the damage from such types of farming is the fact that when this land is converted to oil production it, of necessity, forces the poor farmers further into the forests to find places to grow food crops.  Plus there is the vast road and processing infrastructure required for processing the oil as processing plans must be nearby as the palm harvest must be processed quickly after harvest.  Unfortunately the best land in terms of profits to convert to palm oil plantations is forest. 

The article is pretty interesting and worth a look.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/044031/article (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/044031/article)   
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 17, 2013, 05:10:24 PM
"make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs"

Don't you mean "so cheap, we don't have to meter it"

Oops, that ones already been used before.

Never mind.  :)

Really, if you still think the great goal is to increase human access to energy (so we can do even more of all the wonderful things we've been doing to the living planet with all the vast amounts of energy we've been granted so far), perhaps you haven't been paying quite enough attention.

Go play with the kids, wili! Are you claiming the only way to make energy is to make CO2?

wili did not say this. wili is suggesting that cheap energy and more growth will not solve our problems. AGW and most of the frightening problems facing civilization are caused by incessant growth; pollution of all sorts, top soil erosion, famine, war and disease to name a few. We simply cannot grow ourselves out of a  problem that is caused by growth.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 17, 2013, 07:16:51 PM
Thanks, Jim and Susan. Glad to hear it was not just my failure to communicate clearly that was the problem here (although it wouldn't have been the first time).

Jim, any idea how much of those palm plantations are to make palm oil for alternative fuels? That would be a great irony indeed, and has been part of the history of this travesty world wide. With the phasing out of hydrogenated oil, though, palm oil seems to be the main replacement, so these could be all to serve that new market.

Lots of mangrove forests have also been removed from around islands of southeast Asia to make way for  palm tree plantations. This has added greatly to deaths from surges both from the Ache tsunami and from Haiyan recently. Also, about ten years ago, peat fires raged all year in Indonesia (iirc) where land had been cleared for palmtree plantations. Lovelock claimed that this one source accounted for 40% of all greenhouse gasses emitted that year. I think that plantation was supposed to be for European biofuel projects, but I could be mistaken there.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 17, 2013, 07:42:59 PM
I don't buy the anti-human philosophy. Some people think people are the problem and I think people are the solution. I haven't noticed anyone thinking people are the problem disappearing from Earth, or is it just all those other people who are the problem? It sounds rather selfish to me.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 17, 2013, 08:57:43 PM
In other words, you are saying you have faith that humans (and specifically human global industrial eternal-growth-based society) will act as it has not acted before and use nearly all of any future energy source to: restore ecosystems; re-establish balance in the carbon, nitrogen and other wildly disrupted cycles; and in general do everything it can to minimize its impact on the planet and on the future.

That is a wonderful faith to have.

But it doesn't have much to do with evidence or science.

Also, to say that my (and Jim's and Susan's and many other's) position is anti-human is like saying that someone expressing concern that a live chainsaw not be put in the hands of a hyperactive six year old is anti-child.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 17, 2013, 09:20:13 PM
In other words, you are saying you have faith that humans (and specifically human global industrial eternal-growth-based society) will act as it has not acted before and use nearly all of any future energy source to: restore ecosystems; re-establish balance in the carbon, nitrogen and other wildly disrupted cycles; and in general do everything it can to minimize its impact on the planet and on the future.

That is a wonderful faith to have.

But it doesn't have much to do with evidence or science.

I only have faith in God and humanity. It's up to humanity to make their choices and I'll bet they'll eventually figure out the smart way.

I detest any concept someone else living on Earth doesn't deserve as much as I do, or they are my problem. The problem starts here.   

Also, to say that my (and Jim's and Susan's and many other's) position is anti-human is like saying that someone expressing concern that a live chainsaw not be put in the hands of a hyperactive six year old is anti-child.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 18, 2013, 04:02:33 AM
"I only have faith in God and humanity. It's up to humanity to make their choices and I'll bet they'll eventually figure out the smart way.

I detest any concept someone else living on Earth doesn't deserve as much as I do, or they are my problem. The problem starts here. "

Presumably those are intended to be your contributions. Well, heavens bless you child.

(Meanwhile, spend some time learning to use the quote function properly, would you?)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on November 18, 2013, 05:50:51 AM
Jim, any idea how much of those palm plantations are to make palm oil for alternative fuels? That would be a great irony indeed, and has been part of the history of this travesty world wide. With the phasing out of hydrogenated oil, though, palm oil seems to be the main replacement, so these could be all to serve that new market.

It is mostly for bio-fuels.  Brazil has a mandate for the production of bio-fuel just like we do.  Theirs is to replace diesel.  All the big players are lining up.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 18, 2013, 07:16:59 AM
"I only have faith in God and humanity. It's up to humanity to make their choices and I'll bet they'll eventually figure out the smart way.

I detest any concept someone else living on Earth doesn't deserve as much as I do, or they are my problem. The problem starts here. "

Presumably those are intended to be your contributions. Well, heavens bless you child.

(Meanwhile, spend some time learning to use the quote function properly, would you?)

heavens, would?

(I must have been too busy concentrating on my singular/plural, past/present/future tense.)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 18, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
?? I'm using those words in their common English meanings and forms.

Quote
would...
4. expressing a polite request.
"would you pour the wine, please?"

https://www.google.com/search?q=would&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (https://www.google.com/search?q=would&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Quote
heaven
1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens)

Or did you mean something else? In any case, totally off topic.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 20, 2013, 06:34:43 PM
I did not believe we had a chance to hold warming to 2C by 2100 but we are not even trying.

<I>Wednesday's study, by Climate Analytics, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Ecofys, said Japan's decision last week to ease its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions goals made it harder to reach the global 2C goal.

Japan said its original emissions goal of a 25 percent cut below 1990 levels was out of reach after its nuclear power industry was shuttered by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The new goal is for a maximum 3 percent rise.</I>

We need the equivalent of a global "Marshall Plan" to survive. The market simply cannot react quickly enough to build the power generation needed to wean ourselves off of FF. I see no evidence of the political courage to  initiate such a plan. All we really need to do now is write the apologies to our grandchildren.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 20, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
?? I'm using those words in their common English meanings and forms.

Quote
would...
4. expressing a polite request.
"would you pour the wine, please?"

https://www.google.com/search?q=would&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (https://www.google.com/search?q=would&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Quote
heaven
1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens)

Or did you mean something else? In any case, totally off topic.

Do you mean off topic like your post?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Laurent on November 20, 2013, 07:50:18 PM
Everything you want to know about carbon (nearly?)
http://carbonatlas.org/ (http://carbonatlas.org/)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: TeaPotty on November 20, 2013, 10:31:36 PM
ggelsrinc,

Can u please stop inserting that big ego of yours into every post?  ::)


Thanx <3
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 20, 2013, 10:51:36 PM
+10

Meanwhile:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-u.n.-official-issue-blunt-warnings-to-coal-industry-16755 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-u.n.-official-issue-blunt-warnings-to-coal-industry-16755)

Scientists, U.N. Official Warn of ‘Unabated’ Coal Use

Quote
As U.N. climate talks continue in Warsaw, Poland, scientists and a top U.N. climate official issued a stark warning to the coal industry on Monday: close existing, inefficient plants and implement technology to capture and store emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases at all new power plants, or risk accelerating global warming to potentially catastrophic levels.

...The statement said that the largest portion of the remaining carbon budget should be allocated to economic sectors that have “no readily available alternatives,” such as liquid fossil fuels used to power aircraft, ships, and trucks, rather than electricity generation, for which lower carbon sources are already on the market.

Another warning not likely to be heard. The problem is that corporations, while legally human, can't think collectively about the long term future very well. They can only think about the next quarter's profits. So it will likely only be legislation or cheaper market values for alternatives (or some combination of the two) that will move them toward doing the 'right thing' here.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 23, 2013, 04:00:20 PM
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/11/carbon-emissions-on-tragic-trajectory/ (http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/11/carbon-emissions-on-tragic-trajectory/)

[size=150]Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory[/size]

Quote
Global emissions continue to be within the highest scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), she said.

“This is a five-degree C trajectory. It’s absolutely tragic for humanity to be on this pathway,” Le Quéré said.

This year’s 36 billion tonnes of CO2 will raise the planet’s temperature about 0.04 degrees C for thousands of years. Every tonne emitted adds more warming, she said. (If one tonne of CO2 was a second, 36 billion seconds equals about 1,200 years.)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: wili on November 26, 2013, 02:39:16 AM
Sudden Shutoff of Carbon Emissions Would Not Stop Global Warming, Study Says

Quote
...even if global carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the residual CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to contribute to global warming for centuries.

 … Frolicher’s study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggests that the 2 °C rise may be achieved with a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere.”If our results are correct, the total carbon emissions required to stay below 2 degrees of warming would have to be three-quarters of previous estimates, only 750 billion tons instead of 1,000 billion tons of carbon,” Frolicher said.

    The reason for this disparity in figures is that previous models did not take into account the gradual reduction in the ocean’s ability to absorb heat from the atmosphere, particularly at the poles.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5063/20131125/sudden-shutoff-carbon-emissions-stop-global-warming-study.htm (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5063/20131125/sudden-shutoff-carbon-emissions-stop-global-warming-study.htm)

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories (http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories)

(Thanks to hank at RC for these links.)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: silkman on November 30, 2013, 02:53:42 PM
In the UK, David Cameron entered Downing St with a commitment to lead the "greenest Government ever" but now he's quoted as "wanting to get rid of the green crap".

Decisions in government are taken on a political timescale. in the UK every government in recent times has tinkered with education and healthcare because they think they can make a difference in five years. The more difficult, longer term issues always get pushed onto the back burner.

So how do we give a problem that most folk expect to impact them decades down the road more immediacy?

We need communication tools that graphically illustrate to need for action now and communicate the ever increasing impact of delay.

In that context I real like this simple website created by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford. It's not very sophisticated and based on a simple but transparent spreadsheet and is counting down to the release of the trillionth tonne of anthropomorphic carbon.

http://trillionthtonne.org (http://trillionthtonne.org)

I personally find it mesmeric, in particular the way in which the Trillion Tonne cliff edge marches towards us day by day. Project this or something like it on a screen at all Climate Change negotiations and at least the delegates would be aware of the fact the every day lost makes things that little bit worse.

And if, like me, you like meters, have a look at this site which I find is a great stimulant of debate on many topics.

http://www.worldometers.info (http://www.worldometers.info)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ccgwebmaster on November 30, 2013, 04:34:54 PM
So how do we give a problem that most folk expect to impact them decades down the road more immediacy?

We need communication tools that graphically illustrate to need for action now and communicate the ever increasing impact of delay.

Maybe not very likely - but I think rounding them up and forcefully exporting them to the Philippines or similar would be a good start.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: crandles on March 13, 2015, 02:35:35 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460)

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on March 13, 2015, 03:22:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460)

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014

As I pointed out in the other place you posted this your conclusion about this and what the headlines said are different.


The EIA is ONLY talking about part of the emissions and not the total.  They are referring to emissions from the energy sector only as the report says this..

Quote
...global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014...

So it appears that the EIA press release is only talking about part of the emissions and not all of the other emissions related to industry, agriculture, nature (induced by climate change), and other human activity.

Total emissions are reported to be above 40 Gtonnes with a yearly rise of over 2%.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: jai mitchell on March 13, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
China has been overproducing now for about 1 decade in a desperate economic expansion bid.  They have produced apartment and hotel complexes that stand completely empty throughout their country.  Steel is piling up in stockyards and they continue to produce more and more.  Their expansion has been financed by debt accumulation and the majority of these loans are completely insolvent. 

They need to maintain a 7% annual growth rate to prevent social unrest.  Now they have reached an apex in production, global consumption is stalling and pollution effects have been having a terrible human impact.

We have reached peak fossil fuels.  Now we will find out just how much the Chinese aerosols have contributed to the negative PDO and the warming 'hiatus', and, of course, the recent arctic sea summer sea ice 'recovery'.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: anthropocene on March 13, 2015, 09:23:06 PM
Even if the IEA report is for energy sector only - I still take it with a large pinch of salt.  Presumably the CO2 emission is calculated by taking the amount of fossil fuel burned and multiplying by a fixed amount of CO2 emission for each fossil fuel type. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  The main shift we are seeing is from coal to (fracked) gas. So C02 is replaced with CH4 emissions - which are most likely massively under-estimated (I've seen reports of anywhere between 2 and 7 times under reported). So once again the fossil fuel industry manages to externalise a cost out of being accounted for.  Sigh. The proof of the pudding will be in future CO2 (and CH4) atmospheric concentrations. But of course if sources like the IEA are saying that CO2 emissions are levelling off or even falling but CO2 still increases I can already hear the voices shouting: "Look, look, we reduce human CO2 emissions but the CO2 still goes up - so we didn't cause the problem in the first place!"  Double sigh.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 13, 2015, 09:35:13 PM
Even if the IEA report is for energy sector only - I still take it with a large pinch of salt.  Presumably the CO2 emission is calculated by taking the amount of fossil fuel burned and multiplying by a fixed amount of CO2 emission for each fossil fuel type. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  The main shift we are seeing is from coal to (fracked) gas. So C02 is replaced with CH4 emissions - which are most likely massively under-estimated (I've seen reports of anywhere between 2 and 7 times under reported). So once again the fossil fuel industry manages to externalise a cost out of being accounted for.  Sigh. The proof of the pudding will be in future CO2 (and CH4) atmospheric concentrations. But of course if sources like the IEA are saying that CO2 emissions are levelling off or even falling but CO2 still increases I can already hear the voices shouting: "Look, look, we reduce human CO2 emissions but the CO2 still goes up - so we didn't cause the problem in the first place!"  Double sigh.

Good points. Per the first attached plot of atmospheric methane concentrations at Mauna Loa from 2000 to January 2015, atmospheric methane concentrations are currently accelerating (of which fracking is contributing some portion). 

Edit:  The second attached plot make the same point (with less signal noise) using methane data collected at the South Pole.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: deep octopus on March 13, 2015, 09:44:42 PM
I would certainly appreciate seeing this report in greater detail as well, considering the multi-faceted nature of global emissions (for instance, the dubious tracking of deforestation contributions to emissions.) Much as this stands as good news on the surface, it would be remiss if it oversimplified its calculations and its following conclusions, stealing away from our perspective of the larger picture.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Csnavywx on March 14, 2015, 01:13:01 AM
China has been overproducing now for about 1 decade in a desperate economic expansion bid.  They have produced apartment and hotel complexes that stand completely empty throughout their country.  Steel is piling up in stockyards and they continue to produce more and more.  Their expansion has been financed by debt accumulation and the majority of these loans are completely insolvent. 

They need to maintain a 7% annual growth rate to prevent social unrest.  Now they have reached an apex in production, global consumption is stalling and pollution effects have been having a terrible human impact.

We have reached peak fossil fuels.  Now we will find out just how much the Chinese aerosols have contributed to the negative PDO and the warming 'hiatus', and, of course, the recent arctic sea summer sea ice 'recovery'.

That's certainly part of it.

How I see it. Feel free to correct if there's a weakness in the argument:

 The other is a concerted effort to close down small mines in the last 1-2 years (nearly 2000 of them) and consolidate production to large operations and place generation capacity next to where mining operations are. This helps curb the air pollution problem. China has invested a huge sum into UHV transmission to help accomplish this. I suspect they will continue to use an "all-of-the-above" strategy to bring additional electric capacity online, so I would expect an increase in renewables (mainly due to these UHVs allowing significant flexibility in where they're installed), coal-fired capacity and gas-fired capacity. Coal production and consumption will continue to take a hit until the mine and eastern plant closures are done and new production capacity is brought online further west. They also seem bent on alleviating a geostrategic weakness of oil imports through a narrow sea lane by leveraging their considerable coal reserves to convert coal to liquids. Incidentally, the newly installed UHV lines will free up rail capacity formerly used by coal trains and allow it to be used by liquids transport.


Under this scenario, I would suspect another flat year or two before we see upward creep in CO2 emissions resume. This will likely last until renewables are cheaper (with cap factor measured in) and can start taking a significant bite out of the pie. The biggest complication to this will be how far China takes the coal-to-liquids program and how aggressive other Southeast Asian countries are with their coal consumption. This year will also likely be complicated by low oil and gas prices causing an increase in their use.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: jai mitchell on March 14, 2015, 01:46:41 AM
Very good!

Yes they are definitely talking about relocating, even moving industries to Africa and relocating workers!

The coal consumption today in China is about 50% electric generation and 23% cement production, other industry is shown below with future projections. 

However, this graphic is from a year ago and is incorrect as china coal consumption actually declined this year.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fangrybearblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Foldimages%2Fangrybear%2F1%2F_8UVGnCIfOVk%2FTDxLjInyRoI%2FAAAAAAAAAUY%2FMUqTlmf_Siw%2Fs1600%2Fcoalchina.jpg&hash=404b78e04143f54aee5ebdad9254930a)

In any event, as the effects of CO2 emitted in the last decade start to impact the warming regimes, at the same time the continual growth of Chinese aerosols (SO2) will be suspended and likely decline, possibly significantly)  No matter how you slice it, the result is the same, a radical increase in radiative forcing and a regime change from the global warming "pause" to rapid, scary intensification.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 20, 2015, 03:33:33 PM
As this thread is entitled: "Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc." , I think that it is good to calibrate what we are talking about every so often, so I e-mailed MIT and asked them for their latest estimate of the current global atmospheric GHG concentrations in terms of CO2-equivalent, CO2-eq, and they responded that: "The latest forecasted CO2_eq for April 1, 2015 is 485.48ppm".

For methodology & background see the following linked sites:

http://agage.mit.edu/ (http://agage.mit.edu/)
http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/1975 (http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/1975)

So as jai keeps reminding us, as China makes a big push to clean-up their air pollution problem (note that currently anthropogenic aerosols account for about a negative 55 ppm of CO2-eq) the  effective GHG concentration could jump from the current approximate value of 430 ppm CO2-eq to say 475 ppm CO2-eq, as early as 2020 (when COP21 kicks-in). 

I think that few policymakers understand the seriousness of the rapidly approaching climate consequences.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: jai mitchell on March 20, 2015, 11:37:16 PM

I think that few policymakers understand the seriousness of the rapidly approaching climate consequences.

Indeed SLR, however it should also be noted that the 10-year time lag of full warming potential realization indicates that we are currently operating at a level only a few years after China began to triple the rate of its coal consumption. 

The only thing that has maintained reasonably steady temperatures has been the aerosols, the INCREASE of aerosols and the effect of these aerosols on local regional dimming and global impacts.  If my understanding is correct and surface flows are severely impacted in the western pacific, causing the unusual PDO effect over the last 10 years, then a LACK OF INCREASE of aerosols will likely cause this system to 'flip'.  producing a non-linear 'tipping point' response over the next 4 years.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: jai mitchell on March 27, 2015, 05:07:40 AM
Recent study shows that all oil and natural gas well seals will fail and begin venting methane to the atmosphere.

http://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/handle/88435/dsp019s1616326 (http://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/handle/88435/dsp019s1616326)

CO2, Methane, and Brine Leakage Through Subsurface Pathways: Exploring Modeling, Measurement, and Policy Options


Quote
Subsurface pathways, such as abandoned oil and gas wells and faults, can serve as leakage pathways for CO2, methane, brine, and other fluids. These pathways allow fluids from deep subsurface formations to migrate into shallow groundwater aquifers or to the atmosphere. To estimate leakage rates and the associated pressure effects on adjacent aquifers, analytical models representing fluid flow in the vicinity of leaky faults are developed in Chapter 2. The incorporation of this kind of fault model in larger basin-wide multi-scale models allows sub-grid-scale effects due to leakage through faults to be captured with improved efficiency. The corresponding multi-scale framework that accounts for vertical leakage to the overlying aquifer, and horizontal flows perpendicular and parallel to a fault within a grid block, is presented in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, first-of-a-kind direct measurements of methane fluxes from abandoned oil and gas (AOG) wells in Pennsylvania are reported. These measurements may bridge the current gap between top-down and bottom-up methane emission estimates. The mean methane flux at the 19 wells for which fluxes were measured is 0.27 kg/day/well, while the mean methane flux at the control locations near the measured wells is 4.5x10<super>-6</super> kg/day/location. All measured wells showed positive methane leakage. The presence of ethane, propane, and n-butane, along with the methane isotopic composition, indicate that the methane emitted from the measured wells is predominantly of thermogenic origin. In Chapter 5, the number of AOG wells in Pennsylvania is estimated, based on historical records, and found to be in the range of 280,000 to 970,000. When the mean flux rate from the measured wells is applied to these estimated total number of wells in Pennsylvania, methane emissions are 4 to 13% of currently estimated annual statewide anthropogenic methane emissions. To reduce the uncertainty in methane emission estimates, policies that promote reporting and monitoring of these wells need to be developed and implemented. Finally, to reduce impacts of these emissions, strategies for mitigation in addition to well plugging should be considered.


related article.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/14/Oil-Wells-Spout-Methane/ (http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/14/Oil-Wells-Spout-Methane/)

Abandoned Oil Wells Spouting Significant Levels of Methane: Study

Quote
In Pennsylvania, Kang found that abandoned wells leak on average about 96 cubic metres a year, but there may be anywhere from 280,000 to 970,000 such wells in the state alone.

About 16 per cent of all wells didn't leak small amounts, but appear to be "super-emitters" or methane gushers. The highest-polluting well seeped 3.2 cubic metres of gas a day, or 1,168 cubic metres of gas a year. That's nearly $300 worth of natural gas annually.

In comparison, according to Enbridge a typical Canadian resident uses 3,064 cubic metres of gas a year to heat their home and water.

About 10 per cent of all wells leak in British Columbia, but no monitoring is done on the rate of leakage from the province's 10,000 inactive or abandoned wells. Some producing hydraulically-fractured shale gas wells have become super-emitters and leak as much as 3,000 cubic metres a year.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 27, 2015, 11:29:57 PM
It could be my imagination but the four attached NOAA time series of atmospheric methane concentration readings at Mauna Loa Hawaii, Point Barrow Alaska, Trinidad Head California and America Samoa, respectively, all seem to show an uptick in methane concentrations in the 2014 to 2015 timeframe.  If so this is not a good trend.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: werther on March 27, 2015, 11:38:37 PM
Evening, SLR,

You're right; this should be of main concern. I posted similarly on 15 January after watching the Mauna Loa and Barrow graphs. No 'burp' yet, but something 's definitely going on...
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: neal on March 28, 2015, 12:57:35 AM
While there may be attempts in the US to minimize the release of methane with fracked wells, the exponential increase in the number of wells in the US and abroad mean that the amount of methane released in the fracking revolution is at least increasing at the same exponential rate as the number of wells.  The other intensifying factor is that many places in the world have no such voluntary emissions limit and the cost of the effort only reduces profit on an already slim profit margin.

Hastening the day when the big burps begin.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: anthropocene on March 29, 2015, 12:33:21 PM
Hi ASLR,

 Is there a typo in your post? You say that MIT measured c02e is 485ppm.  Then you say particulates are -55 c02e which if completely removed from the atmosphere would take us from 430 c02e to 475 c02e. Shouldn't this be 485 c02e to 540 ppm c02e?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: JimD on March 29, 2015, 09:25:50 PM
Hi ASLR,

 Is there a typo in your post? You say that MIT measured c02e is 485ppm.  Then you say particulates are -55 c02e which if completely removed from the atmosphere would take us from 430 c02e to 475 c02e. Shouldn't this be 485 c02e to 540 ppm c02e?

No ASLR is correct, but he is not assuming that the entire effect of the particulates would go away (which is correct also).

We 'currently' have co2e of approx 485 and the 'effective' co2e is approx 430.  This is due to the negative 55 co2e from the particulates.  If we instantly removed the entire anthro particulate emissions the new value for 'effective' co2e would be that 485 number.

But it is not really possible to remove it all so he is assuming that by 2020 we  will have reduced it significantly and (I am assuming here) that he also figured in the expected rise in co2 concentrations to estimate that by 2020 we will be at an 'effective' co2e of 475.  A pretty damn scary number all by itself as that is a 10% effective increase in 5 years - yikes! as they say.

Now the question is...did my explanation make your confusion worse or better :)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: anthropocene on March 30, 2015, 12:46:31 AM
Thanks for that. No more confusion - makes perfect sense and is pretty obvious really - if I'd bothered to put my brain in gear before typing  :-[
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 30, 2015, 01:01:40 AM
Thanks for that. No more confusion - makes perfect sense and is pretty obvious really - if I'd bothered to put my brain in gear before typing  :-[

For what it is worth, I belatedly concur with JimD's thoughtful explanation.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: neal on March 31, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Jai references wells leaking as much as 3000 m^3/yr.

Gazprom has about 160,000 to 170,000 km of pipeline that leak on average of 6,438 m^3/yr per km.

Per http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/russiangas2006.pdf (http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/russiangas2006.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: jai mitchell on March 31, 2015, 06:20:46 PM
neal

your referenced document says,

Quote
To date there are no verifiable estimates of the level of gas losses during normal
operations.

The issue I was raising is that these capped well failures and methane leakages are a legacy issue after we get to zero emissions.  Every oil and gas well will have to be continually visited and sealed to prevent a long-term runaway warming situation.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 07, 2015, 07:06:21 PM
The linked SkepticalScience article provides a general overview of the modern GHG history before 2011; however, here I only repost the attached image and associate extract, that shows that most of the year to year variations in atmospheric GHG concentrations depends on variations in the land fraction patterns of absorption and  emissions, which is a complex function of various Earth systems.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/EmmissionsAcceleration.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/EmmissionsAcceleration.html)

Extract: "As you can see, the fraction of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere (light blue) varies a lot from year to year and  depends mainly on the land fraction (green), which in turn depends in part on weather patterns that influence plant growth. The partitioning is not just a function of this year’s emissions, but a complex function that relates to the different rates of several independent processes active on land and in the ocean that run at different speeds."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: bosbas on April 13, 2015, 04:08:27 AM
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html)
Feb 2015 goes in the record books as the month the global mean CO2 surpassed 400 ppm.

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 22, 2015, 05:19:55 PM
The linked National Geographic article (and associated image) shows that US primary energy related carbon emissions increased in 2014 even though the associated emissions from coal were declining:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/04/150421-US-carbon-emissions-rise/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/04/150421-US-carbon-emissions-rise/)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 25, 2016, 05:01:38 PM
No one has posted in this thread for a while, so I thought that I would provide the attached plot from the linked website, indicating that as of Jan 11 2016, most GHG concentrations (at specific sites) in the atmosphere are increasing:

http://www.stateofourclimate.com/ (http://www.stateofourclimate.com/)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 25, 2016, 05:33:39 PM
The following website (& associated images for CH4 & N2O, respectively, for Sept 2015) offers another way to periodically track changes in GHG concentrations at selected locations:

http://agage.mit.edu/data/agage-data (http://agage.mit.edu/data/agage-data)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 09, 2016, 11:29:03 PM
So if world governments are making heroic efforts to reduce GHG emissions, why are the Mauna Loa CO2, CH4 and N2O concentrations so high through the first week in Feb 2016 (see respective plots)?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 01, 2016, 05:34:14 PM
Since my last post on this topic the Mauna Loa CH4 concentration thru Feb 28 2016 have gone up into the 1880 ppb +/- range indicating both strong anthropogenic & natural methane emissions this year (following or exceeding the RCP 8.5 scenario for methane).  The first image shows the full record thru Feb 27 2016 and the second image shows a pike in methane concentration on Feb 28 2016.

Edit the third image show the Mauna Loa N2O concentration in 2016, which also shows a continuing increase.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Laurent on March 10, 2016, 07:41:10 PM
The hidden driver of climate change that we too often ignore
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/09/the-hidden-driver-of-climate-change-that-we-too-often-ignore/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/09/the-hidden-driver-of-climate-change-that-we-too-often-ignore/)

Quote
Humans are making global warming worse, all right — but in more ways than you think.

That’s the result of an important new study in Nature, which finds that the Earth’s land “biosphere” — defined as all the plants, animals and microorganisms living on the surface of the Earth (excluding the oceans) — is now a “net source” of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Thus, the biosphere is now adding to global warming in much the same way that all of our fossil fuels are.
Chris Mooney article

ALways it is said that the Nitous oxyde is around 300 times more ponent than CO2 over a  hundred years, but we should take the  10 years value if we want to be accurate with reality. Does some of you have this information ? A graph even better ?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 14, 2016, 06:48:15 PM
The linked reference indicates that the tropospheric hydroxyl distribution is more self-buffering than previously realized; while means that the GWP of CH4 is less likely to increase with increasing atmospheric concentrations:

Lelieveld, J., Gromov, S., Pozzer, A., and Taraborrelli, D.: Global tropospheric hydroxyl distribution, budget and reactivity, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/acp-2016-160, in review, 2016

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2016-160/ (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2016-160/)

Abstract. The self-cleaning or oxidation capacity of the atmosphere is principally controlled by hydroxyl (OH) radicals in the troposphere. Hydroxyl has primary (P) and secondary (S) sources, the former through the photo-dissociation of ozone, the latter through OH recycling in radical reaction chains. We used the recent Mainz Organics Mechanism (MOM) to advance volatile organic carbon (VOC) chemistry in the general circulation model EMAC, and show that S is larger than previously assumed. MOM calculates substantially higher OH reactivity from VOC oxidation compared to predecessor models. Further, we find that nighttime OH formation may be significant in the polluted subtropical boundary layer in summer. Globally S exceeds P, most distinctively in the free troposphere. As a consequence, OH is buffered and not sensitive to perturbations by natural or anthropogenic emission changes. Complementary OH formation mechanisms in pristine and polluted environments of the continental and marine troposphere, connected through long-range transport of O3, maintain stable global OH levels.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 15, 2016, 06:25:21 PM
The linked reference study (see images) the atmospheric methane evolution over the last 40 years and finds that natural processes continue to remove methane from the atmosphere resulting in a shorter methane life than previously feared.

Dalsøren, S. B., Myhre, C. L., Myhre, G., Gomez-Pelaez, A. J., Søvde, O. A., Isaksen, I. S. A., Weiss, R. F., and Harth, C. M.: Atmospheric methane evolution the last 40 years, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3099-3126, doi:10.5194/acp-16-3099-2016, 2016.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3099/2016/ (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3099/2016/)

Abstract. Observations at surface sites show an increase in global mean surface methane (CH4) of about 180 parts per billion (ppb) (above 10 %) over the period 1984–2012. Over this period there are large fluctuations in the annual growth rate. In this work, we investigate the atmospheric CH4 evolution over the period 1970–2012 with the Oslo CTM3 global chemical transport model (CTM) in a bottom-up approach. We thoroughly assess data from surface measurement sites in international networks and select a subset suited for comparisons with the output from the CTM. We compare model results and observations to understand causes for both long-term trends and short-term variations. Employing Oslo CTM3 we are able to reproduce the seasonal and year-to-year variations and shifts between years with consecutive growth and stagnation, both at global and regional scales. The overall CH4 trend over the period is reproduced, but for some periods the model fails to reproduce the strength of the growth. The model overestimates the observed growth after 2006 in all regions. This seems to be explained by an overly strong increase in anthropogenic emissions in Asia, having global impact. Our findings confirm other studies questioning the timing or strength of the emission changes in Asia in the EDGAR v4.2 emission inventory over recent decades. The evolution of CH4 is not only controlled by changes in sources, but also by changes in the chemical loss in the atmosphere and soil uptake. The atmospheric CH4 lifetime is an indicator of the CH4 loss. In our simulations, the atmospheric CH4 lifetime decreases by more than 8 % from 1970 to 2012, a significant reduction of the residence time of this important greenhouse gas. Changes in CO and NOx emissions, specific humidity, and ozone column drive most of this, and we provide simple prognostic equations for the relations between those and the CH4 lifetime. The reduced lifetime results in substantial growth in the chemical CH4 loss (relative to its burden) and dampens the CH4 growth.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 19, 2016, 06:14:57 PM
The linked article indicates that natural gas has just surpassed coal as the primary source of electricity generation in the USA (see image).  This trend very likely is contributing to the recent spike in atmospheric CH4 concentration:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/natural-gas-to-surpass-coal-for-electricity-20154 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/natural-gas-to-surpass-coal-for-electricity-20154)

Extract: "This year is expected to be the first in U.S. history that more electricity will be generated from natural gas than coal, a new analysis has found …"
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: sidd on March 19, 2016, 11:39:24 PM
and looks like non hydro renewables just passed hydro
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 20, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
While the linked article focuses on the environmental impacts of over 200 planned new dams on the Amazon rainforest; I note here that the associated lakes will generate a near-term pulse of increased methane emissions as the submerged rainforest decays:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/18/why-dams-are-such-bad-news-for-the-amazon-rainforest/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/18/why-dams-are-such-bad-news-for-the-amazon-rainforest/)

Extract: "Why more than 200 planned new dams will be a disaster for the Amazon rainforest"
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 25, 2016, 05:52:48 PM
The linked article cites satellite data to indicate that U.S. methane emissions have surged more than 30% in the last decade.  It is almost certain that this increase is primarily due to increases in fracking and the associate increased use of nature gas in the U.S.  I remind readers that no matter what the article says methane has 105 times the GWP of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-could-be-behind-startling-increase-in-methane-surge-in-us-experts-say-a6914346.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-could-be-behind-startling-increase-in-methane-surge-in-us-experts-say-a6914346.html)

Extract: "New Harvard University research, drawing on satellite measurements, concludes that US emissions of methane – a much more powerful warming gas than carbon dioxide – have “increased by more than 30 per cent over the past decade”."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 26, 2016, 06:12:52 PM
As a follow-up to my last post, the linked article provides an example of just what a "wicked problem" climate change really is, by discussing how the US natural gas bridge to the future of sustainable energy is most likely actually accelerating global warming.  The article points out that previous EPA procedures underestimated: (a) the GWP of methane; (b) the leakage rates for methane; and (c) the negative impacts of methane of suppressing the rate of development of more sustainable alternate energy sources.  Unfortunately, new fossil fuel emissions of methane account for less than 50% of the recent surge in global methane emissions; while increases in Asian agricultural sources have accounted for more than 50% of the new emissions.  Furthermore, the recent new Hansen et al (2016) shows that fossil fuels are not the only cause of concern for increasing planetary energy imbalances, as abrupt ice sheet mass loss could almost double the effective ECS value (if the postulated abrupt ice mass losses occur).  I could go on about how even Hansen et al errs on the side of least drama; but policy makers will probably adopt a wait and see attitude anyway:


http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/ (http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/)


Extract: "… molecule for molecule, this unburned methane is much, much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
The EPA insisted this wasn’t happening, that methane was on the decline just like CO2. But it turns out, as some scientists have been insisting for years, the EPA was wrong. Really wrong. This error is the rough equivalent of the New York Stock Exchange announcing tomorrow that the Dow Jones isn’t really at 17,000: Its computer program has been making a mistake, and your index fund actually stands at 11,000.
These leaks are big enough to wipe out a large share of the gains from the Obama administration’s work on climate change—all those closed coal mines and fuel-efficient cars. In fact, it’s even possible that America’s contribution to global warming increased during the Obama years. The methane story is utterly at odds with what we’ve been telling ourselves, not to mention what we’ve been telling the rest of the planet. It undercuts the promises we made at the climate talks in Paris. It’s a disaster—and one that seems set to spread.
 The Obama administration, to its credit, seems to be waking up to the problem. Over the winter, the EPA began to revise its methane calculations, and in early March, the United States reached an agreement with Canada to begin the arduous task of stanching some of the leaks from all that new gas infrastructure. But none of this gets to the core problem, which is the rapid spread of fracking. Carbon dioxide is driving the great warming of the planet, but CO2 isn’t doing it alone. It’s time to take methane seriously.



 The EPA’s old chemistry and 100-year time frame assigned methane a heating value of 28 to 36 times that of carbon dioxide; a more accurate figure, says Howarth, is between 86 and 105 times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two.
If you combine Howarth’s estimates of leakage rates and the new standard values for the heat-trapping potential of methane, then the picture of America’s total greenhouse-gas emissions over the last 15 years looks very different: Instead of peaking in 2007 and then trending downward, as the EPA has maintained, our combined emissions of methane and carbon dioxide have gone steadily and sharply up during the Obama years, Howarth says.



 If the Harvard data hold up and we keep on fracking, it will be nearly impossible for the United States to meet its promised goal of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2025.



 One of the nastiest side effects of the fracking boom, in fact, is that the expansion of natural gas has undercut the market for renewables, keeping us from putting up windmills and solar panels at the necessary pace. Joe Romm, a climate analyst at the Center for American Progress, has been tracking the various economic studies more closely than anyone else. Even if you could cut the methane-leakage rates to zero, Romm says, fracked gas (which, remember, still produces 50 percent of the CO2 level emitted by coal when you burn it) would do little to cut the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions because it would displace so much truly clean power.



 The global-warming fight can’t just be about carbon dioxide any longer."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 22, 2016, 05:10:04 PM
The trillionth ton carbon counter has now surpassed the 600Gt mark.

http://www.trillionthtonne.org/ (http://www.trillionthtonne.org/)

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 01, 2016, 11:24:23 AM
The linked NOAA ESRL Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) website has now been updated in the Spring of 2016 with data through the end of 2015.  The linked data (& attached images) indicate that: (a) the 2015 radiative forcing was 2.974 watts/sq m; (b) AGGI (2015) was 1.374; and (c) CO₂-e was 485ppm.  These all indicate that in 2015 we continued on a BAU pathway:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html)


Edit: Note that the second image confirms that in 2015, CO2, CH4 and N2O atmospheric concentrations increased worldwide.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 01, 2016, 04:43:41 PM
For the past 2 years CO2 emissions from energy consumption has stalled despite the the rapid run up in atmospheric CO2. Here's hoping that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 is the effect of the strong El Nino and not evidence of feedbacks.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/10-charts-showing-why-carbon-emissions-stalled-last-year (http://www.carbonbrief.org/10-charts-showing-why-carbon-emissions-stalled-last-year)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ghoti on May 01, 2016, 07:10:13 PM
We are only recently realizing the massive amount of fugitive ethane and methane being released but not accounted for by fracking in North America. Is it reasonable to expect a massive amount of CO2 is also leaking and not accounted for via the same leaks? These are after all huge carbon sources.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: DoomInTheUK on May 01, 2016, 10:55:16 PM
ghoti -  Sadly not. The carbon is mostly long chain, even when it's been cooked and broken down in to methane and pentane, it's still a chained molecule. I say sadly, as methane has upto 100 times the co2 warming potential in it's first few years of release. This power decreases as it's broken down in the atmosphere by hydroxl and sunlight to become co2 which last for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 03, 2016, 12:06:44 AM
The linked reference (and related following linked article) indicates that what GHG GWP values that one should use to set policy depends on the timeframe that one is concerned about.  If one is concerned that the WAIS could be destabilized by 2030 (or that ECS is in the 4 to 5C range) one would focus on values that encourage limiting short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) like methane or black carbon; otherwise, one would use values that promote reductions in CO₂ emissions:

Myles R. Allen, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Keith P. Shine, Andy Reisinger, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert & Piers M. Forster (2016), "New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2998


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2998.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2998.html)

Abstract: "Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have requested guidance on common greenhouse gas metrics in accounting for Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to emission reductions. Metric choice can affect the relative emphasis placed on reductions of ‘cumulative climate pollutants’ such as carbon dioxide versus ‘short-lived climate pollutants’ (SLCPs), including methane and black carbon. Here we show that the widely used 100-year global warming potential (GWP100) effectively measures the relative impact of both cumulative pollutants and SLCPs on realized warming 20–40 years after the time of emission. If the overall goal of climate policy is to limit peak warming, GWP100 therefore overstates the importance of current SLCP emissions unless stringent and immediate reductions of all climate pollutants result in temperatures nearing their peak soon after mid-century, which may be necessary to limit warming to “well below 2 °C”. The GWP100 can be used to approximately equate a one-off pulse emission of a cumulative pollutant and an indefinitely sustained change in the rate of emission of an SLCP. The climate implications of traditional CO2-equivalent targets are ambiguous unless contributions from cumulative pollutants and SLCPs are specified separately."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/why-were-still-so-incredibly-confused-about-methanes-role-in-global-warming/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/why-were-still-so-incredibly-confused-about-methanes-role-in-global-warming/)

Extract: "It’s perhaps the most contentious issue in U.S. climate change policy right now: How can we deal with emissions of methane, a powerful if short-lived greenhouse gas, which has many sources but appears to be leaking into the air in considerable volumes from U.S. oil and gas operations?"
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 15, 2016, 06:54:56 PM
The attached plot shows the Mauna Loa atmospheric CH4 concentrations thru June 11 2016, indicating the recent up-tick in methane concentrations (combined anthropogenic & natural) is continuing.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 03, 2016, 05:18:33 PM
The linked article indicates that industry has been under-reporting methane gas leaks; and that new detection devices may soon verify that leakage rates are higher than previously assumed:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sleeper-issue-of-leaking-coal-seam-gas-fields-may-blow-hole-in-emissions-goals-20160622-gpph1q.html (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sleeper-issue-of-leaking-coal-seam-gas-fields-may-blow-hole-in-emissions-goals-20160622-gpph1q.html)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: abbottisgone on July 04, 2016, 04:39:08 AM

I think that few policymakers understand the seriousness of the rapidly approaching climate consequences.

Indeed SLR, however it should also be noted that the 10-year time lag of full warming potential realization indicates that we are currently operating at a level only a few years after China began to triple the rate of its coal consumption. 

The only thing that has maintained reasonably steady temperatures has been the aerosols, the INCREASE of aerosols and the effect of these aerosols on local regional dimming and global impacts.  If my understanding is correct and surface flows are severely impacted in the western pacific, causing the unusual PDO effect over the last 10 years, then a LACK OF INCREASE of aerosols will likely cause this system to 'flip'.  producing a non-linear 'tipping point' response over the next 4 years.
Carbon emissions take 40 years to be felt...
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: abbottisgone on July 04, 2016, 04:42:01 AM
The intelligent people who wanted a carbon tax wanted the money given to the people not wasting energy, which are the poor. My strategy is to make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs. We can convert to that method in about ten years and start retiring those dinosaur industries, including our nukes to a new generation of processes generating energy that doesn't pollute our atmosphere with CO2 or anything. We just have to be determined to do it.

We can start now or wait until the next shoe falls.

What about the good folks over in Denmark and Norway? How do you want to make your stand?
Denmark and Norway hardly represent normality!
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on July 08, 2016, 10:36:26 PM
Global CO2 was above 404 ppm for May 2016. The 5 year and 10 year comparison trends continue to accelerate despite the end of El Nino.

See: http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com/2016/07/monthly-global-co2-spikes-above-404-ppm.html (http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com/2016/07/monthly-global-co2-spikes-above-404-ppm.html)

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 08, 2016, 10:39:38 PM
Global CO2 was above 404 ppm for May 2016. The 5 year and 10 year comparison trends continue to accelerate despite the end of El Nino.
A4R,

Great to see you posting here again.  Keep it up :)

ASLR
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 24, 2016, 05:08:09 AM
The attached plot from the linked website indicates that the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring system projects a lot of CO2 emissions from burning:

http://macc.copernicus-atmosphere.eu/d/services/gac/nrt/nrt_fields_ghg (http://macc.copernicus-atmosphere.eu/d/services/gac/nrt/nrt_fields_ghg)!Carbon%20dioxide!Total%20column!120!Global!macc!od!enfo!nrt_fields_ghg!2015101200!!/
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 24, 2016, 05:44:04 PM
The linked article indicates that Russia's (& other countries') policy of letting wildfires burn, does not only increase CO₂ emissions, but also decreases CO₂ absorption:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/22/world/science-health-world/russian-wildfires-put-key-climate-change-resource-risk/#.V5ThBE1gleV (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/22/world/science-health-world/russian-wildfires-put-key-climate-change-resource-risk/#.V5ThBE1gleV)

Extract: " Russia’s practice of leaving massive wildfires to burn out of control in sprawling stretches of Siberia puts at risk a key global resource for absorbing climate-warming emissions: its trees.
The blazes are consuming millions of hectares of pristine Boreal forests in Russia, which are second only to the world’s tropical jungles in capturing planet-warming carbon emissions.
At the same time, the drier and harsher conditions associated with a warmer climate — June was the hottest ever recorded — are contributing to the fires becoming ever bigger and more common.

Russia’s forestry agency chief Ivan Valentik said however that most wildfires that don’t threaten people will likely only be monitored not extinguished.
“Not a single country has any desire or capability to stop natural fires that don’t threaten towns or economic infrastructure … there is not a single reason to attend to them,” he said."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 10, 2016, 11:51:11 AM
Per the linked reference we can reduce methane emissions from global rice production by the use of optimized water management practices.

Bowen Zhang, Hanqin Tian, Wei Ren, Bo Tao, Chaoqun Lu, Jia Yang, Kamaljit Banger & Shufen Pan (8 August 2016), "Methane Emissions from global rice fields: Magnitude, spatio-temporal patterns and environmental controls", Global Biogeochemical Cycles, DOI: 10.1002/2016GB005381

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GB005381/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GB005381/abstract)

Abstract: "Given the importance of the potential positive feedback between methane (CH4) emissions and climate change, it is critical to accurately estimate the magnitude and spatio-temporal patterns of CH4 emissions from global rice fields and better understand the underlying determinants governing the emissions. Here, we used a coupled biogeochemical model in combination with satellite-derived contemporary inundation area to quantify the magnitude and spatio-temporal variation of CH4 emissions from global rice fields and attribute the environmental controls of CH4 emissions during 1901-2010. Our study estimated that CH4 emissions from global rice fields varied from 18.3 ± 0.1 Tg CH4/yr (Avg. ± 1 std. dev.) under intermittent irrigation to 38.8 ± 1.0 Tg CH4/yr under continuous flooding in the 2000s, indicating that the magnitude of CH4 emissions from global rice fields was largely dependent on different water schemes. Over the past 110 years, our simulated results showed that global CH4 emissions from rice cultivation increased 85%. The expansion of rice fields was the dominant factor for the increasing trends of CH4 emissions, followed by elevated CO2 concentration, and nitrogen fertilizer use. On the contrary, climate had the negative effect on the cumulative CH4 emissions for most of the years over the study period. Our results imply that CH4 emissions from global rice fields could be reduced through implementing optimized irrigation practices. Therefore, the future magnitude of CH4 emissions from rice fields will be determined by the human demand for rice production as well as the implementation of optimized water management practices."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 23, 2016, 05:36:27 PM
It seems to me that air-conditioning and refrigeration represent a bigger climate risk than most authorities are willing to admit publically.  I am posting in this thread so we do not lose sight of the HFC emissions:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/22/why-air-conditioning-vicious-circle-weatherwatch (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/22/why-air-conditioning-vicious-circle-weatherwatch)

Extract: "With the demand for air conditioning rising worldwide, it’s reckoned that in around 30 years’ time more energy could be used for cooling than for heating.

Air conditioning also pumps out heat straight into the atmosphere. Like a fridge, it takes heat from the inside of a building or car, then transfers it to the warm outside. That extra heat makes cities hotter, raising night-time temperatures by up to 2C, which then encourages people to turn up their air conditioning even higher.

And there’s another sting to keeping cool. Air conditioning systems also use powerful greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. These gases leak out into the atmosphere, especially from vehicles, and global emissions of HFCs rose by more than half between 2007 and 2012, adding to the burden of climate change even more.
And as the climate grows hotter, there’s more need to stay cool. It’s a vicious circle."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: TerryM on August 23, 2016, 06:43:22 PM
ASLR
Canada has been seeing peek electric loads during cooling season rather than heating season for some time. AC has gone from a rather ostentatious display of opulence to an expected convenience in private homes, offices & factories.


I'd assume that this would hold true for the States & Europe.


Slightly OT is the fact that few are aware of a heat pump's lack of efficiency at under 40F (4.5 C). It simply requires so much energy to defrost the condenser coil that  even strip (resistive) heat is less expensive. This applies to Air/Air, Water/Air, or Geo./Air units. The condenser side needs >4.5 C or the unit can't work efficiently.


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 23, 2016, 07:33:05 PM
Terry, Hate to be dense but I would like to make sure I understand you correctly. If ,for example ,you would choose to run an air conditioner with the temperature outside at anything below 40 F  it won't work very well because the condensers will freeze up ?  Probably more applicable to a refrigerator in someone's garage as an example but do I understand your point about frozen condensation on a condenser ?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: sesyf on August 23, 2016, 08:16:02 PM
At least here in Finland the air to air heat pumps are considered to work up to -20 C for the best models; also it's said that they need to be kept running even when colder, to prevent outside unit from freezing - at least some models are 'thawed' at some point with sort of reversing the heatflow from inside the house to outside unit, if I have understood the workings correctly.

Last winter was not very cold hereabouts so cannot say if there would be real issues in even colder situations - at least the different versions, air to air, air to water etc have sold well here.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: TerryM on August 24, 2016, 04:51:04 AM
Bruce
Hope I steer away from the pedantic, but:
A heat pump can be thought of as an AC that sometimes runs in reverse. Since (almost) all units provide both heating and cooling the outside coil is referred to as the condenser coil, even though it actually acts as an evaporator during most of the heat cycle.
If ambient temperatures are well above freezing the unit requires very few defrost cycles to keep the air or water from insulating the coil with ice and restricting air or water flow.
To defrost, a reversing valve reverses the flow of refrigerant through the system and a diverter stops the flow of now chilled air entering the interior space, The cooler the outside air becomes, the more often defrosting is necessary & the longer it takes to melt away the ice. Strip heaters are sometimes incorporated into both the outer coil to aid defrost and in the ducting space for inside air so that heating is maintained even during defrost.
AC refrigeration and heating systems operate by cooling or heating air by 20F on each pass through the coil. At 40F air passing through the coil will be chilled to 20F until ice builds up and begins restricting the flow, then the temperature drops. Even with very dry air, moisture condenses and ice forms rapidly.
The warmer the ambient is, the more efficient a heat pump will be. At <~40F it requires so much energy, and time, to defrost that less electricity will be used by simply using resistance heaters.


sesyf
At -20C, -4F, an air/air heat pump won't be efficient. At least no system that I've seen or can imagine. If you consider that a heat pump operates by extracting heat from the outside air it becomes evident that continuous running in very cold weather will not prevent freezing, rather the opposite.
I don't doubt that heat pumps are being sold, even in locations where other systems would be preferable. Few people know how much energy their heating system draws, even fewer care, besides, with a heat pump a stand alone AC unit isn't required. Simple, cheap and easy to install.
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ghoti on August 24, 2016, 06:19:36 AM
There are now several brands of air source heat pumps that operate quite efficiently at -20C (COP of 2). I can't properly explain the magic used to maintain efficiency at those temperatures but there's more than one method used to accomplish it.

But always efficient and never needing defrosting ground source heat pumps maintain huge efficiency (COP up to 4) for both heating and cooling. There are at least two ways to achieve efficient heat exchange for the ground source - fluid mediated and direct exchange.

Heat pumps are definitely going to be important in our fossil fuel free future.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 26, 2016, 12:19:56 PM
A4R has a nice graph showing Increases of global CO2 for the one , five , and ten year trend lines that also shows rate increases for all three.

http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com/ (http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com/)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 15, 2016, 01:34:04 AM
The linked PNAS reference indicates that particularly in the past decade anthropogenic methane emissions have been increasing much faster than previously reported:

Andrew L. Rice, Christopher L. Butenhoff, Doaa G. Teama, Florian H. Röger, M. Aslam K. Khalil and Reinhold A. Rasmussen (2016), "Atmospheric methane isotopic record favors fossil sources flat in 1980s and 1990s with recent increase", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1522923113

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/09/06/1522923113 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/09/06/1522923113)

Abstract: "Observations of atmospheric methane (CH4) since the late 1970s and measurements of CH4 trapped in ice and snow reveal a meteoric rise in concentration during much of the twentieth century. Since 1750, levels of atmospheric CH4 have more than doubled to current globally averaged concentration near 1,800 ppb. During the late 1980s and 1990s, the CH4 growth rate slowed substantially and was near or at zero between 1999 and 2006. There is no scientific consensus on the drivers of this slowdown. Here, we report measurements of the stable isotopic composition of atmospheric CH4 (13C/12C and D/H) from a rare air archive dating from 1977 to 1998. Together with more modern records of isotopic atmospheric CH4, we performed a time-dependent retrieval of methane fluxes spanning 25 y (1984–2009) using a 3D chemical transport model. This inversion results in a 24 [18, 27] Tg y−1 CH4 increase in fugitive fossil fuel emissions since 1984 with most of this growth occurring after year 2000. This result is consistent with some bottom-up emissions inventories but not with recent estimates based on atmospheric ethane. In fact, when forced with decreasing emissions from fossil fuel sources our inversion estimates unreasonably high emissions in other sources. Further, the inversion estimates a decrease in biomass-burning emissions that could explain falling ethane abundance. A range of sensitivity tests suggests that these results are robust."

Also see:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/13/the-answer-to-the-global-methane-mystery-fossil-fuels-a-study-finds/?utm_term=.9c3d5b61cc09 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/13/the-answer-to-the-global-methane-mystery-fossil-fuels-a-study-finds/?utm_term=.9c3d5b61cc09)

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 06, 2016, 01:30:38 AM
The linked reference indicates that methane emissions are much higher than previously estimated; which explains why atmospheric methane concentrations are increasing, and which will also make it less likely that the IPCC will achieve their stated goals:

Stefan Schwietzke, Owen A. Sherwood, Lori M. P. Bruhwiler, John B. Miller, Giuseppe Etiope, Edward J. Dlugokencky, Sylvia Englund Michel, Victoria A. Arling, Bruce H. Vaughn, James W. C. White & Pieter P. Tans (06 October 2016), "Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature19797

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7623/full/nature19797.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7623/full/nature19797.html)

&

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature19797.epdf?referrer_access_token=p6_LpMh9PB1AysWGs92qndRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M65pTu-meS4gM65_CHaFER1lif4oa9unP0ZqkRx7GIqTpiG2x4kaayiiBco7CLfuv-lt2m-2AfMBjykyw-PSMRhqwIgVKyU_xWo0-oh7YZqaWr8Pg2DqsbgyO0IXaR3mRUbQM51RxMO5wz1yaI_Ef7bm2o4gJDze0yrt37ykrb7uNUUM6tCY9DErftkMwVCkM%3D&tracking_referrer=time.com (http://www.nature.com/articles/nature19797.epdf?referrer_access_token=p6_LpMh9PB1AysWGs92qndRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M65pTu-meS4gM65_CHaFER1lif4oa9unP0ZqkRx7GIqTpiG2x4kaayiiBco7CLfuv-lt2m-2AfMBjykyw-PSMRhqwIgVKyU_xWo0-oh7YZqaWr8Pg2DqsbgyO0IXaR3mRUbQM51RxMO5wz1yaI_Ef7bm2o4gJDze0yrt37ykrb7uNUUM6tCY9DErftkMwVCkM%3D&tracking_referrer=time.com)

Abstract: "Methane has the second-largest global radiative forcing impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases after carbon dioxide, but our understanding of the global atmospheric methane budget is incomplete. The global fossil fuel industry (production and usage of natural gas, oil and coal) is thought to contribute 15 to 22 per cent of methane emissions to the total atmospheric methane budget. However, questions remain regarding methane emission trends as a result of fossil fuel industrial activity and the contribution to total methane emissions of sources from the fossil fuel industry and from natural geological seepage, which are often co-located. Here we re-evaluate the global methane budget and the contribution of the fossil fuel industry to methane emissions based on long-term global methane and methane carbon isotope records. We compile the largest isotopic methane source signature database so far, including fossil fuel, microbial and biomass-burning methane emission sources. We find that total fossil fuel methane emissions (fossil fuel industry plus natural geological seepage) are not increasing over time, but are 60 to 110 per cent greater than current estimates owing to large revisions in isotope source signatures. We show that this is consistent with the observed global latitudinal methane gradient. After accounting for natural geological methane seepage, we find that methane emissions from natural gas, oil and coal production and their usage are 20 to 60 per cent greater than inventories. Our findings imply a greater potential for the fossil fuel industry to mitigate anthropogenic climate forcing, but we also find that methane emissions from natural gas as a fraction of production have declined from approximately 8 per cent to approximately 2 per cent over the past three decades."

See also:
http://time.com/4520124/natural-gas-methane-fossil-fuel/ (http://time.com/4520124/natural-gas-methane-fossil-fuel/)

Extract: "The oil, gas and coal industries emit far more methane than previously understood, a finding that could complicate calculations about the speed of climate change and the best ways to address it, according to new research.

Researchers behind the study, published in the journal Nature, found that methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, as well as natural methane emissions from underground, are 60% to 110% higher in total than previously thought.

Scientists have only recently begun to grapple fully with the role methane—the most common chemical in natural gas—plays in contributing to man-made climate change."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Hefaistos on October 06, 2016, 07:46:40 AM
...with most of this growth occurring after year 2000.

From the WP article: "...fugitive fossil fuel methane emissions have actually increased since the 1980s by an average of about 24 megatons, or million tons, per year, with much of this growth occurring since the year 2000. At the same time, the study suggests that methane emissions from  wetlands, rice cultivation and biomass burning have fallen."

So, what happened around year 2000?
Fracking got a technological break-through and started to be employed on a large scale:
"In 1997, Nick Steinsberger, an engineer of Mitchell Energy (now part of Devon Energy), applied the slickwater fracturing technique, using more water and higher pump pressure than previous fracturing techniques, which was used in East Texas by Union Pacific Resources (now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation), in the Barnett Shale of north Texas.[33] In 1998, the new technique approved to be successful when the first 90 days gas production from the well called S.H. Griffin No. 3 exceeded production of any of the company's previous wells.[37][38] This new completion technique made gas extraction widely economical in the Barnett Shale, and was later applied to other shales.[39][40][41] George P. Mitchell has been called the "father of fracking" because of his role in applying it in shales"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

Seems to me that fracking should be verboten.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Hefaistos on October 06, 2016, 09:35:46 AM
This might have been mentioned before, but worth reminding about the huge losses of methane from fracking, estimated on average at almost 6% of total production.

"A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas"
Robert W. Howarth, 2014

"... estimating the amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere
as a percentage of the lifetime production of a gas
well
(normalized to the methane content of the natural
gas), including venting and leakages at the well site but
also during storage, processing, and delivery to customers.
For conventional natural gas, we estimated a range of
methane emissions from 1.7% to 6% (mean = 3.8%), and
for shale gas a range of 3.6% to 7.9% (mean = 5.8%) [8].
We attributed the larger emissions from shale gas to venting
of methane at the time that wells are completed, during
the flowback period after high-volume hydraulic
fracturing, consistent with the findings of the EPA 2010
report [7]."

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 06, 2016, 04:53:08 PM
The linked The Guardian article quotes Schwietzke as indicating that it is good that methane has a high GWP and a short lifespan, as this means that the climate will respond quickly when we finally start cutting back on anthropogenic methane emissions (other ESLD scientists are just as enthusiastic about high values of ECS, stating that GMST will drop rapidly once we control emissions).  However, per the attached image, most of the new emissions are coming from natural sources (like wetlands), which represent early activation of "slow-response" feedback mechanisms, indicating that the "true" climate system sensitivity this century will likely be higher than ECS:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/05/fossil-fuel-industrys-methane-emissions-far-higher-than-thought (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/05/fossil-fuel-industrys-methane-emissions-far-higher-than-thought)

Extract: "Lead author Stefan Schwietzke, of the University of Colorado and US science agency Noaa, said that methane from fossil fuels had played a significant role in global warming, but the gas’s short lifetime meant acting on it now could pay quick dividends.

“The good news is that reducing methane emissions now will reduce climate forcing in only a few years – it takes much longer for CO2. And since fossil fuel methane emissions are higher than previously thought, the potential to reduce climate forcing from this specific source is also greater,” he told the Guardian."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Hefaistos on October 06, 2016, 07:56:56 PM
... most of the new emissions are coming from natural sources (like wetlands), which represent early activation of "slow-response" feedback mechanisms, indicating that the "true" climate system sensitivity this century will likely be higher than ECS:

ASLR, that's a good point, and I'd like to add, that we really don't see any comparable efforts to reign in methane emissions to what's going on in regards to CO2 emissions. On the contrary, natural gas (Methane) still has the false reputation of a 'cleaner' alternative to other FF.

It's also worth reminding, that if one focuses on the shorter time span GWP's of 10 or 20 years, one mustn't forget that methane has as big a role in global warming as CO2. Methane's global
warming potential (GWP) is 108 for the 10 year horizon, 86 for 20 years, and 34 for 100 years.

R.W. Howarth puts it in the following way:
"The IPCC /2013/ further concludes that at the 10-year timescale, the current global
release of methane from all anthropogenic sources exceeds
(slightly) all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions as
agents of global warming; that is, methane emissions are
more important (slightly) than carbon dioxide emissions
for driving the current rate of global warming
. At the 20-
year timescale, total global emissions of methane are
equivalent to over 80% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

This difference in the time sensitivity of the climate
system to methane and carbon dioxide is critical
, and not
widely appreciated by the policy community and even
some climate scientists. While some note how the longterm
momentum of the climate system is driven by
carbon dioxide [15], the climate system is far more
immediately responsive to changes in methane "

A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas
Robert W. Howarth
https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwii8auT3sbPAhVCdCwKHWKnCqYQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eeb.cornell.edu%2Fhowarth%2Fpublications%2FHowarth_2014_ESE_methane_emissions.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFwTn6xMLN8R_pt3Bbz8xeHRvkROA&cad=rja (https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwii8auT3sbPAhVCdCwKHWKnCqYQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eeb.cornell.edu%2Fhowarth%2Fpublications%2FHowarth_2014_ESE_methane_emissions.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFwTn6xMLN8R_pt3Bbz8xeHRvkROA&cad=rja)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: solartim27 on October 27, 2016, 10:10:50 PM
Posted by https://www.facebook.com/SkepticalScience/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/SkepticalScience/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf)

http://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-burning-fossil-fuels-will-cause-climate-change-as-early-as-1882/ (http://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-burning-fossil-fuels-will-cause-climate-change-as-early-as-1882/)
Quote
A 1912 news article ominously forecasted the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels on climate change

"A short news clip from a New Zealand paper published in 1912 has gone viral as an example of an early news story to make the connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change.
It wasn’t, however, the first article to suggest that our love for coal was wreaking destruction on our environment that would lead to climate change. The theory—now widely accepted as scientific reality—was mentioned in the news media as early as 1883, and was discussed in scientific circles much earlier than that."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 10, 2016, 08:12:25 PM
The linked article is entitled: "NASA's space-based maps of carbon dioxide emissions". Hopefully, such tools will (may) allow us to make better decisions:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/nasa-s-space-based-map-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions

Extract: "Carbon dioxide emissions have been mapped in high resolution by NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite, showing widespread carbon dioxide across major urban areas and smaller pockets of high emissions emanating from individual cities."
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 15, 2016, 07:42:47 PM
I have previously posted similar information on this matter in the Conservative Scientist thread (as it is still not clear whether we will get off the RCP 8.5 scenario or not, see the two attached images); however, it should also be posted in this the thread as well.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-global-co2-emissions-2016-mean-climate-change (https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-global-co2-emissions-2016-mean-climate-change)

“Emissions have levelled out, but it’s too early to say whether that’s a peak in global emissions. First of all, we’d need to see emissions going down…Then after that, we’d need several years, maybe even a decade, to be confident that it was actually a peak.”
First things first, we need to first see where the final figure for 2016 ends up. The scientists’ central projection is for a 0.2% rise, but uncertainties inherent in these kind of carbon budget calculations means fossil fuel emissions could fall by as much as 1%, or rise by up to 1.8%. There’s even a 32% chance the figure could be outside both of these limits, say the scientists."

See also:
Le Quéré, C. et al. (2016) Global carbon budget 2016. Earth System Science Data. DOI: 10.5194/essd-8-1-2016
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 17, 2016, 12:14:32 AM
The linked reference indicates that there are more abandoned well than previously believe that may (or are) leak methane gas; while the following linked article indicates that most likely Donald J. Trump will likely gut Obama's tighter regulations to control such methane leaks from wells:

Mary Kang, et. al. (2016), "Identification and characterization of high methane-emitting abandoned oil and gas wells", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605913113

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/11/08/1605913113 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/11/08/1605913113)

Significance: "Millions of abandoned oil and gas wells exist across the United States and around the world. Our study analyzes historical and new field datasets to quantify the number of abandoned wells in Pennsylvania, individual and cumulative methane emissions, and the attributes that help explain these emissions. We show that (i) methane emissions from abandoned wells persist over multiple years and likely decades, (ii) high emitters appear to be unplugged gas wells and plugged/vented gas wells, as required in coal areas, and (iii) the number of abandoned wells may be as high as 750,000 in Pennsylvania alone. Knowing the attributes of high emitters will lead to cost-effective mitigation strategies that target high methane-emitting wells."

Abstract: "Recent measurements of methane emissions from abandoned oil/gas wells show that these wells can be a substantial source of methane to the atmosphere, particularly from a small proportion of high-emitting wells. However, identifying high emitters remains a challenge. We couple 163 well measurements of methane flow rates; ethane, propane, and n-butane concentrations; isotopes of methane; and noble gas concentrations from 88 wells in Pennsylvania with synthesized data from historical documents, field investigations, and state databases. Using our databases, we (i) improve estimates of the number of abandoned wells in Pennsylvania; (ii) characterize key attributes that accompany high emitters, including depth, type, plugging status, and coal area designation; and (iii) estimate attribute-specific and overall methane emissions from abandoned wells. High emitters are best predicted as unplugged gas wells and plugged/vented gas wells in coal areas and appear to be unrelated to the presence of underground natural gas storage areas or unconventional oil/gas production. Repeat measurements over 2 years show that flow rates of high emitters are sustained through time. Our attribute-based methane emission data and our comprehensive estimate of 470,000–750,000 abandoned wells in Pennsylvania result in estimated state-wide emissions of 0.04–0.07 Mt (1012 g) CH4 per year. This estimate represents 5–8% of annual anthropogenic methane emissions in Pennsylvania. Our methodology combining new field measurements with data mining of previously unavailable well attributes and numbers of wells can be used to improve methane emission estimates and prioritize cost-effective mitigation strategies for Pennsylvania and beyond."

See the relevant article on Trump likely walking-back Obama's tighter methane emission regulations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/11/this-is-the-other-way-that-trump-could-worsen-global-warming/?utm_term=.668fcd59cef1 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/11/this-is-the-other-way-that-trump-could-worsen-global-warming/?utm_term=.668fcd59cef1)

Extract: "… Trump is also expected to seek to reverse or undermine another set of Obama policies meant to curb climate change that focus not on carbon dioxide, the most notorious greenhouse gas, but rather methane …

… Obama’s 45 percent reduction target for methane emissions by 2025 now appears unlikely to happen, says Stanford’s Jackson …"
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: DrTskoul on January 22, 2017, 05:27:21 PM
2014 US end use CO2 emissions by sector ( from the "United States Mid-Century Strategy FOR DEEP DECARBONIZATION" - Nov 2016)


Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: DrTskoul on January 22, 2017, 05:30:28 PM
Since the server got scrubbed I am attaching original. 

edIt: found here

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/mid_century_strategy_report-final.pdf
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: ecojosh on January 25, 2017, 12:30:24 AM
Daily average CO2 levels "unavailable" at NOAA since January 21.  Is this concerning or just a bad coincident? https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: DrTskoul on January 25, 2017, 12:55:32 AM
Coincidence I hope... It happens regularly...
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: MrVisible on January 25, 2017, 09:56:44 PM
Does anyone know what's going on with earth.nullschool.net's CO2sc readings?

From what I'm seeing, sometime late on the night of the 23rd, the readings went wonky. It's gone all grey and blue instead of its usual orange and red. I'm guessing a worldwide overnight jump of 30ppm is somewhat unlikely?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: DrTskoul on January 26, 2017, 03:42:35 AM
It is the hot air coming from the White House....
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Darvince on January 26, 2017, 10:29:14 PM
Reposting from the 2016/17 freezing season thread...

If you read the documentation for nullschool, you will note that the creator pulls the data from the GEOS-5 model, which for some reason output data with a global average of 368ppm. GEOS-5 has been updated, and now produces correct CO2 data, but nullschool still does the adjustment resulting in the global average appearing to be in the upper 430ppms, when in reality it is 405ppm as can be viewed if you visit the CO2 threads elsewhere on the forum.

Edit:
It wasn't a smooth transition at all:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/01/24/0130Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-35.74,28.27,463
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/01/24/0430Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-35.74,28.27,463
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Tigertown on January 27, 2017, 01:06:48 AM
Mauna Loa is way above sea level. Earth NS shows surface concentration. I have no idea how the two vary, to be honest. I do know that surface concentrations have gone up, a lot, and despite any re-calibrations. Darvince pointed out about the 32 ppm, ENS usually adds. Perhaps they are still adding it, despite no longer needing to. I don't doubt that at all, but we still have a big problem. I know the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have a bigger effect on warming, as a GHG.
What effects will the surface concentration have on living things? High levels have been shown to make trees more susceptible to insects and disease, but what about other plant life and ocean life?
Here is a video time lapse over the year 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc2JNZiB_Lo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc2JNZiB_Lo)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: MrVisible on January 27, 2017, 01:36:17 AM
What effects will the surface concentration have on living things? High levels have been shown to make trees more susceptible to insects and disease, but what about other plant life and ocean life?

My question is, what about mammals? Specifically, what about us?

It would be pretty straightforward to run multigenerational lab rat experiments to explore the effects of elevated carbon dioxide on mammals, but I can't find any.

It does, however, take a surprisingly small rise in ambient CO2 to impair cognition (http://www.advancedsciencenews.com/co2-on-the-brain-and-the-brain-on-co2/) in the short term.

This paper (http://grapevine.com.au/%7Epbierwirth/co2toxicity.pdf) is a good discussion of the current state of our knowledge on the subject.

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Tigertown on January 27, 2017, 02:45:48 AM
@MrVisible
I don't know much about long term but we are all exposed to high levels for shorter terms on a regular basis.

www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/co2-levels-at-home (http://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/co2-levels-at-home)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: MrVisible on January 27, 2017, 02:57:36 AM
I know, I got interested enough in the subject to buy a CO2 monitor last year, and I've been surprised at how difficult it is to keep my house below 1000 parts per million.

For millions of years, humans rarely experienced a CO2 level above 400; now it's the lowest we'll ever see. We can see measurable short-term and medium-term effects at surprisingly low levels.

Since we're headed for what, 600ppm at the minimum, it would make sense to me to do some experimentation to find out what sort of effects that will have on us.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Tigertown on January 27, 2017, 03:40:14 AM
That would be good to know. I have a good idea what kind of effects not having anything to eat for lack of being able to grow it, would have.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: nicibiene on January 27, 2017, 09:55:44 AM
Just had a look at the measured here in Germany:

http://www.dwd.de/DE/forschung/atmosphaerenbeob/zusammensetzung_atmosphaere/spurengase/inh_nav/klimagase_node.html (http://www.dwd.de/DE/forschung/atmosphaerenbeob/zusammensetzung_atmosphaere/spurengase/inh_nav/klimagase_node.html)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dwd.de%2FDWD%2Fforschung%2Fluftchemie%2Ficos_co2_hpb_365d.png&hash=5601730c9faaa5d2b7c1897b991ffa21)

 :o ??? anyone with other database than Hawaii?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: DoomInTheUK on January 27, 2017, 12:06:05 PM
I think it'll be a while before we get to levels that effect us directly.

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms (https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms)

More than 1,000ppm before complaints of drowsiness.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Paddy on January 27, 2017, 12:20:46 PM
Agreed, and even the higher concentrations in cities should ease with the rise of electric cars.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: MrVisible on January 27, 2017, 02:16:12 PM
I think it'll be a while before we get to levels that effect us directly.

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms (https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms)

More than 1,000ppm before complaints of drowsiness.

People complain about drowsiness (also measurable loss of cognitive ability (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/10/ehp.1510037.acco.pdf)) at 1,000ppm in the short term; doesn't that make you wonder if the constantly increasing ambient CO2 levels might have some long-term effects?

Most people spend a good portion of their days indoors at 1,000 ppm or higher. 280ppm used to be the norm; now people will never see that in their lifetimes. Soon the ambient level will be over 600, which means increasing your indoor exposure levels even more.

I'm just suggesting that experiments to figure out what that actually does to people would be helpful.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: crandles on January 27, 2017, 07:54:54 PM
Just had a look at the measured here in Germany:

 :o ??? anyone with other database than Hawaii?

It happens from time to time.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=OXK&program=ccgg&type=ts (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=OXK&program=ccgg&type=ts)
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Tigertown on January 28, 2017, 07:47:53 PM
By the way:
Earth Null School has removed the extra 32 ppm of sc CO2 from their model and the numbers showing now are actual and they are still not good, some places are as high as 440 ppm plus in Asia, Europe, and Putin Land.

NY city is at about 428 ppm, Atlanta about 425 ppm, and the rest of the U.S. between 420 and 428 ppm. This thing with checking levels at Mauna Loa which is 11,150 ft or about 3400 m above sea level and putting that out as a standard of where we are at is a bunch of crap.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: DrTskoul on January 28, 2017, 08:36:03 PM
MLCO2
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 20, 2017, 09:35:54 PM
Here is a plot of the Mauna Loa Methane concentrations from 2015 to March 20 2017.  I do not see any reduction in the trend line.
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: gerontocrat on March 20, 2017, 10:26:13 PM
By the way:
Earth Null School has removed the extra 32 ppm of sc CO2 from their model and the numbers showing now are actual and they are still not good, some places are as high as 440 ppm plus in Asia, Europe, and Putin Land.

NY city is at about 428 ppm, Atlanta about 425 ppm, and the rest of the U.S. between 420 and 428 ppm. This thing with checking levels at Mauna Loa which is 11,150 ft or about 3400 m above sea level and putting that out as a standard of where we are at is a bunch of crap.
That Keeling guy set it up there as he reckoned the readings would not be affected by local condtions - e.g. trucks and autos, steelworks, coal-powered electricity power stations et al. Smart move. It is the source of 50+ years of unpolluted data. Does it reflect conditions in NY or the coal regions of NE China ? No. Is it still the best measure of additional CO2 in the atmosphere ? Yes.

Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 21, 2017, 02:44:14 PM
Here is a plot of the Mauna Loa Methane concentrations from 2015 to March 20 2017.  I do not see any reduction in the trend line.

Interesting the reduced variability of CO2 measurements at minimum when compared to the rest of the year. Does this happen consistently (farther back in the record)?
Title: Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 21, 2017, 04:15:26 PM
Here is a plot of the Mauna Loa Methane concentrations from 2015 to March 20 2017.  I do not see any reduction in the trend line.

Interesting the reduced variability of CO2 measurements at minimum when compared to the rest of the year. Does this happen consistently (farther back in the record)?

First, the March 20 plot and the attached March 21 2017 plot, are both for methane not CO2 at Mauna Loa,  while the attached plot beginning with 2010 data shows an acceleration in methane concentration after 2013 (you can plot your own graph at the link below).

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts)