Changes in Carbon Emissions 2008 – 2010

Data available here.

(HT: Watts up with that?)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Changes in Carbon Emissions 2008 – 2010

  1. Quentin George says:

    Best way to curb emissions is screwing the economy – don’t worry, Julia and Bob are on to that.

  2. AndrewL says:

    If you actually accept science that is a very strong call to take action.

  3. kelly liddle says:

    Is basically a graph to tell us which economies are doing well at the moment. With the Chinese electricity production figures that is a marker for economic activity and affects markets.

  4. . says:

    E-Cat. Possibly game over for these deep green loons, and their shills like the ‘Investors Group on Climate Change”

    God I hope so. Kyrie eleison.

  5. cohenite says:

    The CSIRO has known for years that Australia is carbon neutral; that is ‘natural’ sinks are absorbing ALL of the anthropogenic CO2 [ACO2]:

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm

    This is important because it means that professor Murray Salby is correct when he supposes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 may not be from ACO2. In fact this is confirmed in a 2009 paper by Knorr:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

    This paper shows that the airborne fraction of ACO2 has not changed in 160 years; this means that ACO2 is NOT responsible for the increase in CO2; the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2?s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2.

  6. big dumb fu says:

    If you actually accept science that is a very strong call to take action.

    …against China. Seems like we’re doing our bit, thanks.

  7. Lazlo says:

    Possibly game over for these deep green loons

    Why do you think data makes any difference?

  8. cohenite says:

    If you actually accept science that is a very strong call to take action.

    What “science”?

  9. Tim Curtin says:

    cohenite: that is not quite right, because you have left out the total human emissions of which in fact only 44% have remained airborne since 1850 (Knorr 2009, or since 1958, Curtin 2009). In reality, of emissions at currently c 10 GtC p.a., around 44% (4.4 GtC) remain aloft (on average over ENSO), so 56% is being taken up by the biospheric sinks, to the huge benefit of all of us not to mention the whales.

    Every year some of that extra 56% is respired/exhaled, so a full accounting needs to add that portion of the 56% to next year’s total emissions, which means that indeed in terms of quantity the biosphere takes up every year not just incremental emissions but also incremental respiration, so in aggregate a huge amount. That is what Hansen WWF Gp et al are determined to stop, because their dearest wish is to exterminate all of us apart from Hansen (aka Dr Strangelove) in his bunkhouse with his blondes.

    The proof of that is in L. Allen et al. (GBC 1987) studiously ignored by the IPCC’s favourite sons Cramer et al 2001, and Friedlingstein et al 2006. They (Allen et al) show inter much alia that raising atmospheric CO2 from 315 to 345 ppm increases the biomass yield on soybean by only 6% whereas from 315 to 630 ppm the increase is 42.7%. That is why Hansen wants to limit us to 350 ppm, as being a covert CIA operative he wants to set a ceiling on the populations of India and China.

  10. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    What this chart tells me is that anyone who thinks there is a snowball’s chance in hell that world emissions are going to stabilise or reduce any time soon lives on another planet.

  11. Gab says:

    Hang on a tick, Dog, Australia has reduced emissions – around 9%, and without a carbon [sic] tax. That should tell you something.

  12. Token says:

    What, strike a new Kyoto and use the pre 9% number as the base line for the agreement. Why not? It worked for Europe last time around.

  13. Dandy Warhol says:

    Grateful if you could change the title of the post to ‘Changes in Carbon DIOXIDE Emissions 2008-2010’.

  14. kelly liddle says:

    Peak fossil fuel is likely within the next hundred years so once that point is reached a few years later CO2 in the atmosphere will decrease if the amount leaving the atmosphere is fairly constant and what
    Tim has indicated 56%. I think 100 years is soon but maybe not in my lifetime.

  15. kelly liddle says:

    few years could be quite a few but a definate trojectory

  16. entropy says:

    Don’t worry Gab, Qld will do its bit to rapidly increase Australia’s emissions as it switches on its LNG plants. It might mean emissions in OS countries will be lower than they otherwise would be, but by jiminy we will be cranking them up in Gladstone.

  17. entropy says:

    and then we can buy carbon credits off those countries to which we sell LNG to make up for it.. oh, wait…

  18. Rafe says:

    How come we have gone backwards with a growing population and more people installing air conditioning every year!

  19. cohenite says:

    Grateful if you could change the title of the post to ‘Changes in Carbon DIOXIDE Emissions 2008-2010?

    .

    Actually they refer to CARBON emissions as a % of CO2 weight which is about 12/44.

    Tim, I know you have kindly instructed me before on this issue; do your calculations mean that ACO2 is responsible for the entirity of CO2 atmospheric increase?

  20. Gab says:

    Rafe

    Cement and coal emission figures have reduced since 2008, I think around 15 – 20% respectively.

  21. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    Gab and others, the reason Australia’s emissions went backwards during the period in question is due to a couple of factors, mainly the weather. From the latest quarterly update to our Greenhouse Gas Inventory

    The lift in emissions in the June quarter follows a year of relatively weak emission levels. Emissions
    for the year to June 2011 were 0.4% lower than the previous year reflecting, in particular, a decrease in
    fugitive emissions from black coal mining and a change in generation sources for electricity.
    Annual electricity generation from coal fell 5% compared with the previous year, whereas natural gas
    generation increased 13% and hydroelectric generation grew 24%. A record wet spring in 2010 followed
    by the second wettest Australian summer on record1 contributed to increased availability of
    hydroelectric resources.

    However, my point about the chart was more to the effect that the huge increases in emissions from China dwarf all the reductions added together. China is adding more greenhouse emissions each year than Australia’s total emissions.

  22. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:
  23. Rafe says:

    Thanks for explanations of reduced emissions, still seems count-intuitive, how good are the data?

    To keep the debate in proper persepctive we should be talking all the time about plant food emissions.

  24. Tim Curtin says:

    cohenite: thanks. No, I don’t necessarily mean “that ACO2 is responsible for the entirety of CO2 atmospheric increase”.

    What we have is an inventory problem. The opening balance on 1 January in any year is the 31 December level of [CO2]. On 1 January there are human emissions mainly from hydrocarbon combustion, natural respirations and exhalations including yours and mine, biospheric + oceanic absorptions (known as sinks), and mirabile dictu, storage of carbon in the bones of all non-plant life while it is alive.

    There is almost certainly no biologist here or elsewhere who has ever heard of the last, especially not one of the authors of the AAS “Q&A” 2010, and certainly not one who can comprehend that in growing populations of humans and livestock there is a constant net increase in such storage. Any one who admitted to that at CSIRO, DCC, or CCI would be fired!

    The IPCC and ALL climate “scientists” ignore natural respirations and exhalations which indicate much higher uptakes of CO2 emissions than they will ever admit to, let alone the net storage of carbon in growing populations. Without exception all IPCC authors are Madoffians.

    So in sum, we have constantly ongoing human and natural emissions and uptakes in scales far beyond the mental capacity of climate “scientists” like the Pittocks, Pitmans, Steffens et all too many of the Austalian climate “science” fraternity, and fraternity is what they are, a freemasonry with a scope far beyond any imagined by Tolstoy and Thomas Mann.

  25. Lazlo says:

    Gab and others, the reason Australia’s emissions went backwards during the period in question is due to a couple of factors, mainly the weather.

    So when it’s good it’s weather, and bad it’s climate? Am I reading you?

  26. Lazlo says:

    Without exception all IPCC authors are Madoffians.

    It’s the ‘offians’ bit I would dispute..

  27. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    Rafe, (that came out “Rage” the first time I typed it) I don’t know really how good the data are. Obviously it is all estimates, with varying degrees of accuracy. Figures on electricity generation and fuel consumption I would assume to be fairly accurate. Fugitive emissions from coal mining, less so. The page I linked gives the sources used. BTW, like your idea of “plant food emissions”.

    Lazlo, I assume that was tongue in cheek.

  28. Lazlo says:

    Umm Which tongue in which cheek?

  29. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    No comment.

  30. Lazlo says:

    So it’s the intellectual dwarf warmists refusal to debate? Correct me if I’m wrong..

  31. Gab says:

    China is adding more greenhouse emissions each year than Australia’s total emissions.

    It’s worse than that, Dog.

    Just China’s increased amount over 2009, I mean the difference not the net total, was more than double Australia’s total for 2010.

    Just makes me want to shake Gillard to her senses.

  32. perturbed says:

    Just makes me want to shake Gillard to her senses.

    The luvvies will use this as proof that deniers advocate violence against women.

  33. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    Indeed I shall correct you, Lazlo. I am a fully paid up sceptic. Always have been. I agree with you that most warmists are indeed intellectual dwarfs.

    I don’t know what I wrote that made you think I should be in such company, but I think you must have misinterpreted it.

  34. Lazlo says:

    In that case MHD: mea culpa..

  35. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    No worries. Glad that we’re on the same page.

  36. Pingback: Here’s what I spilled my latte over this week : Hey… what did I miss? | Institute of Public Affairs

  37. jupes says:

    Hang on a sec.

    Combet, Flannery and Gillard told me that China is reducing its “Carbon intensity”.

    Surely that is more important than mere emissions.

  38. Matthew says:

    Tim Curtin:

    That is why Hansen wants to limit us to 350 ppm, as being a covert CIA operative he wants to set a ceiling on the populations of India and China.

    I can’t tell if you’re joking or insane.

Comments are closed.