CO2 'rising three times faster than expected'

[Jonnymac]

Global emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing three times faster than scientists previously thought, with the bulk of the rise coming from developing countries, an authoritative study has found.

The increase in emissions of the gases responsible for global warming suggests that the effects of climate change to come in this century could be even worse than United Nations scientists have predicted.

The report, by leading universities and institutes on both sides of the Atlantic, will create renewed pressure on G8 leaders who are meeting this week in Heiligendamm, on Germany's Baltic coast.

Top of the agenda are proposals by Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, to halve global emissions by 2050.

There were violent clashes at the weekend in the nearby city of Rostock between police and protesters during a march by tens of thousands demonstrating about the summit.

The latest study was written by scientists from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States, the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, as well as institutes in France and Australia.

It shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by three per cent a year this decade, compared to a 1.1 per cent a year rise in the 1990s. Three quarters of this rise came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid increase in China.

The rise is much faster than even the most fossil-fuel intensive scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during the 1990s.

It suggests that IPCC reports this year predicting reduced harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting glaciers and the loss of species may actually be understated.

It also comes after the International Energy Agency warned recently that China was likely to overtake the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2010, rather than a decade later as previously assumed.

Both China and India are resisting any move that could curb their growth.

Meanwhile, President George W Bush indicated last week that he did not favour the European Union's proposed approach of trying to limit the temperature rise to below two degrees centigrade.

He still opposes the use of "cap and trade" financial mechanisms, which Europeans believe are the only way of transferring clean technologies to the developing world.

However, he has indicated a willingness to "lead" talks to devise a post-Kyoto treaty that would include the world's top 15 polluters by the time he leaves office in early 2009.

A report by leading aid charities, including Oxfam and Christian Aid, will say today that between one billion and four billion people are likely to suffer from drought and 250 million run short of food if average temperatures rise by more than two degrees.

Antonio Hill, of Oxfam, said: "G8 counties face two obligations in this year's summit - to keep global warming below two degrees and to start helping poor countries to cope with harm already caused."

Source

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe they had not the time to factor in the reduction in uptake of the worlds carbon sinks (as reported in April). If ,since the late 70's , the 'sinks' have not been able to accept more CO2 as emmisions have risen (as was expected) then the only place for the CO2 to go is into the atmosphere.

We are still (courtesy now of China/India) massively increasing, year on year, our CO2 output so where do they expect it (the CO2) to go????

The models need updating to incorporate the changes but sadly, seeing as the IPCC have only just published it's major work, it won't happen (I imagine) for a while.

The last 2 yrs have been splattered by reports of environmental changes 40yrs ahead of time and this, I would imagine, is the reason why.

The sceptics who put CO2 as a 'white elephant' to 'confuse the masses' will, soon enough, see their whitewash removed revealing the very real elephant that is rapid climate change.

Sadly for us all we will no longer have a 40yr wait to see if it is the truth or not!!

[Guest Daniel]

Global emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing three times faster than scientists previously thought, with the bulk of the rise coming from developing countries, an authoritative study has found.

The increase in emissions of the gases responsible for global warming suggests that the effects of climate change to come in this century could be even worse than United Nations scientists have predicted.

The report, by leading universities and institutes on both sides of the Atlantic, will create renewed pressure on G8 leaders who are meeting this week in Heiligendamm, on Germany's Baltic coast.

Top of the agenda are proposals by Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, to halve global emissions by 2050.

There were violent clashes at the weekend in the nearby city of Rostock between police and protesters during a march by tens of thousands demonstrating about the summit.

The latest study was written by scientists from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States, the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, as well as institutes in France and Australia.

It shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by three per cent a year this decade, compared to a 1.1 per cent a year rise in the 1990s. Three quarters of this rise came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid increase in China.

The rise is much faster than even the most fossil-fuel intensive scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during the 1990s.

It suggests that IPCC reports this year predicting reduced harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting glaciers and the loss of species may actually be understated.

It also comes after the International Energy Agency warned recently that China was likely to overtake the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2010, rather than a decade later as previously assumed.

Both China and India are resisting any move that could curb their growth.

Meanwhile, President George W Bush indicated last week that he did not favour the European Union's proposed approach of trying to limit the temperature rise to below two degrees centigrade.

He still opposes the use of "cap and trade" financial mechanisms, which Europeans believe are the only way of transferring clean technologies to the developing world.

However, he has indicated a willingness to "lead" talks to devise a post-Kyoto treaty that would include the world's top 15 polluters by the time he leaves office in early 2009.

A report by leading aid charities, including Oxfam and Christian Aid, will say today that between one billion and four billion people are likely to suffer from drought and 250 million run short of food if average temperatures rise by more than two degrees.

Antonio Hill, of Oxfam, said: "G8 counties face two obligations in this year's summit - to keep global warming below two degrees and to start helping poor countries to cope with harm already caused."

Source

Man made global warming is still a theroy not Fact. In a warmer world more crops should grow and there should be less need for engery to keep warm,. The fact that the poor are dying in the Third world is more to do with bad goverments than climate. Do you ever see third world kings or leaders starving. No they live comfy lives in huge comfy buildings in safe areas while there poor people strave until that changes there will aways be starvation. As for climate even though we are warm now there a real chance the world will cool after 2010 as the sun goes into another quite period. History clearly shows that cold is aways far more harmful than warmth. the last little iceage was a time of mass starvation as crops failed exct. while warm periods brought better times. there no reason why a future warm period with proper managment cant do the same.

[Gray-Wolf]

Man made global warming is still a theroy not Fact. In a warmer world more crops should grow and there should be less need for engery to keep warm,. The fact that the poor are dying in the Third world is more to do with bad goverments than climate. Do you ever see third world kings or leaders starving. No they live comfy lives in huge comfy buildings in safe areas while there poor people strave until that changes there will aways be starvation. As for climate even though we are warm now there a real chance the world will cool after 2010 as the sun goes into another quite period. History clearly shows that cold is aways far more harmful than warmth. the last little iceage was a time of mass starvation as crops failed exct. while warm periods brought better times. there no reason why a future warm period with proper managment cant do the same.

I find it hard to access the world you live in D., believe me I've tried but so far without success.

Whenever you tell us that warmer is better you always seem to leave out the other essential ingredient needed to bring about your promise of better times for most....... sadly without the 'other ingredient' you're dead in about 4 days.......

So, with your infallable sources and understanding of our global predicament, can you enlighten a poor old fool so he can rest as easy as you?

Edited June 4, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[cheeky_monkey]

all the more reason to nuke china and india now!!..tht would certainly reduce co2 emmissions b4 they get out of control...lol

[millennia]

The current CO2 concentration is around the 400ppm mark. Over the whole of Earth's history we can measure from paleo-climatic measurements the average concentration of CO2 is about 2,500ppm.

The world was not a ball of molten lead until a few hundred thousand years ago, and while important CO2 is NOT the chief greenhouse gas. Water vapour is by far more important and a change in concentrations of this make a far bigger difference than we can make cutting human output of CO2 a few percent. To see the doomsayers predictions you would think that a doubling of CO2 would see a runaway greenhouse effect and destruction of life on Earth, and yet when concentrations of CO2 were 10 times what they are now during the times of the dinosaurs it is likely that average global temperatures were only in the order of 22 deg C. Yes, a heck of a lot warmer than now but no sign of any "runaway" effect. Cloud cover has a far bigger impact on surface temperture than CO2 concentrations, and don't forget how much cleaner our atmosphere has become in the developed world in the last 50 years - more sunlight getting through. The fact we have been cleaning up our act over the last 50 years could even be contributing to the trend. You only have to see the effect on the US surface temperature after 9/11 - a 1 deg C rise in just 3 days because aircraft contrails weren't blotting out the sun, completely reversed when the 'planes returned to the skies. All this shows how much more massively complicated the picture is and can't be nailed to the emissions of one gas.

There are reports of the sea heating up to 3000m down, and this is shown as yet another sign of GW. Yet nobody points out that to heat the sea at this depth involves currents and heat exchange cycles that can last over hundreds of years. This is far more likely to be a reaction to warming events that pre date the little ice age.

Sometimes we do pander to our own feelings of importance when considering what effects we may be having on the planet and I do think the pessimistic views are more politically driven than factual. Also why do we never see the benefits of GW discussed to balance the arguements? In the 1998 El Nino year much was reported on the $2 billion of damage caused by floods and storms to the US. Yet very little was printed about the benefits, such as an exceptionally mild winter dramatically reducing the use of heating fuel? In fact it was estimated the benefits to the US economy amounted to some $17 billion - a net gain of $15 billion. I myself saved 25% on my heating bill this winter due to the exceptionally mild climate, and paradoxically saved a whole wedge of CO2 going into the atmosphere from my domestic boiler! This seems to have been missed by the scientists.

So can we have some balance please? Yes, the world's climate is changing. Yes, we are producing more CO2 and the atmospheric concentration is increasing. No, plotting two graphs next to each other and declaring "correlation" is not proof. No, there is still little evidence that on balance the planet will be worse off as predictions of mass famines and great storms are based on climate models that not only can't tell what the weather will be next week, but when you put last week's data into them they can't tell you what the weather was LAST week!

[Devonian]

The current CO2 concentration is around the 400ppm mark. Over the whole of Earth's history we can measure from paleo-climatic measurements the average concentration of CO2 is about 2,500ppm.

Source and relevance please - for example you can only really compare now with other times with similar solar output and continental (and thus ocean current) alignment.

The world was not a ball of molten lead until a few hundred thousand years ago, and while important CO2 is NOT the chief greenhouse gas. Water vapour is by far more important and a change in concentrations of this make a far bigger difference than we can make cutting human output of CO2 a few percent.

Ahh, but this planet is 70% covered in water, water vapour is thus not in limited supply. Much more importantly how could large changes in WV be a forcing of warming rather than a response to warming?

To see the doomsayers predictions you would think that a doubling of CO2 would see a runaway greenhouse effect and destruction of life on Earth, and yet when concentrations of CO2 were 10 times what they are now during the times of the dinosaurs it is likely that average global temperatures were only in the order of 22 deg C.

Again, you can't compare now with time in the distant past for the reasons I gave. Besides, I'd like to see who's talking about 'runaway' warming as a seriously likely possibility?

Yes, a heck of a lot warmer than now but no sign of any "runaway" effect. Cloud cover has a far bigger impact on surface temperture than CO2 concentrations, and don't forget how much cleaner our atmosphere has become in the developed world in the last 50 years - more sunlight getting through. The fact we have been cleaning up our act over the last 50 years could even be contributing to the trend. You only have to see the effect on the US surface temperature after 9/11 - a 1 deg C rise in just 3 days because aircraft contrails weren't blotting out the sun, completely reversed when the 'planes returned to the skies. All this shows how much more massively complicated the picture is and can't be nailed to the emissions of one gas.

Climate is indeed complicated. but basic physics tells us what a doubling of CO2 will do. It's a significant figure not to be trifled with - but, of course, it's how much the feedback warming might be that matters.

There are reports of the sea heating up to 3000m down, and this is shown as yet another sign of GW. Yet nobody points out that to heat the sea at this depth involves currents and heat exchange cycles that can last over hundreds of years. This is far more likely to be a reaction to warming events that pre date the little ice age.

Just coincidence then? Maybe.

Sometimes we do pander to our own feelings of importance when considering what effects we may be having on the planet and I do think the pessimistic views are more politically driven than factual. Also why do we never see the benefits of GW discussed to balance the arguements?

So now you're saying significant warming is happening???

In the 1998 El Nino year much was reported on the $2 billion of damage caused by floods and storms to the US. Yet very little was printed about the benefits, such as an exceptionally mild winter dramatically reducing the use of heating fuel? In fact it was estimated the benefits to the US economy amounted to some $17 billion - a net gain of $15 billion. I myself saved 25% on my heating bill this winter due to the exceptionally mild climate, and paradoxically saved a whole wedge of CO2 going into the atmosphere from my domestic boiler! This seems to have been missed by the scientists.

So can we have some balance please? Yes, the world's climate is changing. Yes, we are producing more CO2 and the atmospheric concentration is increasing. No, plotting two graphs next to each other and declaring "correlation" is not proof. No, there is still little evidence that on balance the planet will be worse off as predictions of mass famines and great storms are based on climate models that not only can't tell what the weather will be next week, but when you put last week's data into them they can't tell you what the weather was LAST week!

We know CO2 is a ghg, we know other changes (land use and the rest) brought about by humanity have a climate changing effect. That's just the way atmosphere physics is.

[Iceberg]

"So can we have some balance please? Yes, the world's climate is changing. Yes, we are producing more CO2 and the atmospheric concentration is increasing. No, plotting two graphs next to each other and declaring "correlation" is not proof"

I'd suggest reading some of the pro AGW links if this is the evidence you have seen, it might well open up a new world for you.

"No, there is still little evidence that on balance the planet will be worse off as predictions of mass famines and great storms are based on climate models that not only can't tell what the weather will be next week, but when you put last week's data into them they can't tell you what the weather was LAST week!"

Climate models are climate models not weather models, doh...... I think all sceptics need to be able to understand the difference between climate and weather. It's like saying a 2CV is a car, a Maclaren F1 is a car hence they should drive, react and go the same speed.

The article/study doesn't really surprise me but has any body any links to the science behind it, Just as I would with an anti article I would need to see the science and data to come to a realistic conclusion.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

The current CO2 concentration is around the 400ppm mark. Over the whole of Earth's history we can measure from paleo-climatic measurements the average concentration of CO2 is about 2,500ppm.

Not sure this has any relevence at all does it?

[The Penguin]

It might, although it's not the end of the world. At those levels.

[Bobby]

Does this thread have to turn into another AGW vs anti-AGW debate?

I have always thought that things could progress faster than most were predicting. With this recent rapid upshoot in CO2 levels we combined with less global dimming, we could see some big increases in global temps over the coming decade.

[millennia]

Climate models are climate models not weather models, doh...... I think all sceptics need to be able to understand the difference between climate and weather. It's like saying a 2CV is a car, a Maclaren F1 is a car hence they should drive, react and go the same speed.

Pedentic

So substitute week for year or decade - fact is these models don't work backwards and tell us what we have already experienced. If a model can take data from 20 years agao and 10 years ago and without tweaking - just straight data input - and accurately show how the climate for the Earth was for those years then it makes it a lot more believable runnign forward. Things is all we ever see is projections, and usually for long enough in the future the the people doing it will have got their pensions by the time we find out how close they are. Some reason to formulate a tax plan and throw on the hair shirts whenever you start your car eh?

Apologies for the typos, just running out the door to do a 50 mile drive

[pottyprof]

So now we say that the IPCC are a joke by understating....?!

The rise is much faster than even the most fossil-fuel intensive scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during the 1990s.

It suggests that IPCC reports this year predicting reduced harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting glaciers and the loss of species may actually be understated.

But when the report came out this year, a lot of people were claiming how right they were. While I suppose this scenario remains a possibility, don't you just feel that there is a little bit of scaremongering going off??

Magpie.....

Does this thread have to turn into another AGW vs anti-AGW debate?

Provided it stays on topic, discussing the article and remains in the realms of sensible debate, then yes.

[Iceberg]

Alot of people where claiming how conservative they where, not how right they where.

Right direction, wrong speed.

As to this study I've not seen an ounce of scientific data from it, so reluctantly must dismiss it as only a possible or potential hype at the moment.

Matt

[biffvernon]

Iceberg, before dismissing it, you might read the paper from which I guess the OP's post was derived:

CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y-1 for 1990-1999 to >3% y-1 for 2000-2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s. Global emissions growth since 2000 was driven by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of gross domestic product (GDP) (energy/GDP) and the carbon intensity of energy (emissions/energy), coupled with continuing increases in population and per-capita GDP. Nearly constant or slightly increasing trends in the carbon intensity of energy have been recently observed in both developed and developing regions. No region is decarbonizing its energy supply. The growth rate in emissions is strongest in rapidly developing economies, particularly China. Together, the developing and least-developed economies (forming 80% of the world's population) accounted for 73% of global emissions growth in 2004 but only 41% of global emissions and only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-18th century. The results have implications for global equity.

Download the whole of this rather important paper from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

And hot on it's heels we have:

Hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers accelerating as climate warms

Hundreds of glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula are flowing faster, further adding to sea level rise according to new research published this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Climate warming, that is already causing Antarctic Peninsula increased summer snow melt and ice shelf retreat, is the most likely cause.

Using radar images acquired by European ERS-1 and -2 satellites, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) tracked the flow rate of over 300 previously unstudied glaciers. They found a 12% increase in glacier speed from 1993 to 2003. These observations - that echo recent findings from coastal Greenland - indicate that the cause is melting of the lower glaciers, which flow directly into the sea. As they thin, the buoyancy of the ice can lift the glaciers off their rock beds, allowing them to slide faster.

In February this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that they could not provide an upper limit on the rate of sea-level rise from Antarctica in coming centuries because of a lack of understanding of the behaviour of the large ice sheets. These new results give scientists a clearer picture about the way that climate warming can affect glaciers both in the Arctic and Antarctic. Furthermore, they pave the way for more reliable projections of future sea level rise, and provide a better basis for policy decisions.

Lead author Dr Hamish Pritchard says,

“The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century. Eighty-seven percent of its glaciers have been retreating during this period and now we see these glaciers are also speeding up. It’s important that we use tools such as satellite technology that allow us to monitor changes in remote and inaccessible glaciers on a regional scale. Understanding what’s happening now gives us our best chance of predicting what’s likely to happen in the future.”

[Devonian]

Iceberg, before dismissing it, you might read the paper from which I guess the OP's post was derived:

Download the whole of this rather important paper from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1

Thanks for that - I couldn't find it. Stark isn't it, gulp.

I doubt Matt dismisses it in the way I think you mean . I rekon he just likes to read things before he comments.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Devonian

[biffvernon]

Indeed

[Iceberg]

Indeed, my first post on this thread ended with.

"The article/study doesn't really surprise me but has any body any links to the science behind it, Just as I would with an anti article I would need to see the science and data to come to a realistic conclusion. "

Thanks for the actual science I hate jumping to conclusion from press snipets alone.