HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Global Carbon Emissions u...

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:02 PM

Global Carbon Emissions up 2.5% During 2011 - 34 Billion Metric Tons New Record High

(Reuters) - Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2011 rose 2.5 percent to 34 billion metric tons (37.48 billion tons) , a new record, Germany's renewable energy institute said on Tuesday.

The IWR, which advises German ministries, cited recovered industrial activity after the end of the global economic crisis of recent years.

"If the current trend is sustained, worldwide CO2 emissions will go up by another 20 percent to over 40 billion metric tons by 2020," IWR director Norbert Allnoch said.

China led the table of emitters in 2011 with 8.9 billion metric tons, up from 8.3 billion a year earlier. Its CO2 output was 50 percent more than the 6 billion metric tons in the United States. India was third, ahead of Russia, Japan and Germany. In May the International Energy Agency said that global CO2 emissions rose 3.2 percent last year to 31.6 billion metric tons, led by China.

EDIT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/entertainment-us-carbon-emissions-study-idUSBRE8AC0J320121113

28 replies, 2048 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply Global Carbon Emissions up 2.5% During 2011 - 34 Billion Metric Tons New Record High (Original post)
hatrack Nov 2012 OP
ffr Nov 2012 #1
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #3
ffr Nov 2012 #4
joshcryer Nov 2012 #6
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #22
joshcryer Nov 2012 #23
hatrack Nov 2012 #24
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #25
joshcryer Nov 2012 #27
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #28
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #5
joshcryer Nov 2012 #7
hatrack Nov 2012 #11
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #2
pscot Nov 2012 #9
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #8
Nihil Nov 2012 #10
CRH Nov 2012 #12
joshcryer Nov 2012 #20
joshcryer Nov 2012 #19
phantom power Nov 2012 #13
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #14
hatrack Nov 2012 #15
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #17
CRH Nov 2012 #16
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #18
CRH Nov 2012 #21
Livluvgrow Nov 2012 #26

Response to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:02 AM

1. Daily LOW temps higher by 7 to 14 degrees every day this year.

Just about anyway. Now that frost is finally showing up here, a month late, people are all surprised by it, but clueless that average temps should be more like a deep freeze.

And, AND, the average temps already factor in all the previous years, including the last three decades of rising temps AND STILL the morning lows are higher. We're phucked. Not as a nation, as an intelligent species and we're going to take all the rest, less the insects with us.

See if your location has the same excessively high low temperatures.

1) Goto Intellicast.com
2) Pick or type in your city or a nearby city/town. Like Denver, CO for instance <example here>
3) Next, observe the forecast low daily temps for the coming week: 33, 35, 35, 37, 37, 37, 37, 36, 36*
4) Select the 'Historic Averages' in the upper right portion of the same screen and look at how far off the average low temps are: 23, 23, ,23, 23, 22, 22, 22, 21, 21, 21.

See that? The temps aren't 1.5 or 2 or 4 degrees above normal. They're 10* to 15* above normal

Temps should be: 23, 23, ,23, 23, 22, 22, 22, 21, 21, 21
Temps actually R: 33, 35, 35, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 36, 36*
Difference ??????: 10, 12, 12, 14, 15, 15, 15, 16, 15, 15


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ffr (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:14 AM

3. It is a rather strange coincidence, TBH.

Just remember, though, keep one thing in mind: Weather isn't climate.

We're phucked. Not as a nation, as an intelligent species and we're going to take all the rest, less the insects with us.


Not really necessary, btw. Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:24 AM

4. What were the low temps where you live?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:28 AM

6. Climate is weather over time.

Increased records, over time, is an indicator of climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:07 AM

22. Yeah, but this is the only year that low temps have been this above average this long. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:25 AM

23. No one born in the past 27 years has experienced a month without record high temps.

Fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:01 AM

24. Now that's an interesting way of putting it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:50 PM

25. Yeah, but what does that have to do with my prior statement?

I'm a weather watcher of sorts and this is the only year I can recall that average low temps have been this significantly above average, with this much consistence.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:59 PM

27. Um, it directly contridicts "this is the only year."

No, sorry, but that's simply not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:43 PM

28. But not 7, 8, 9, 10 degrees, not for several months at a time.

You really need to start paying attention.

What I said, pretty clearly, is that this is the only year that I can recall, going back some time, in fact, that low temperatures have consistently been 7, 8, 9, 10+ degrees above the average for several months, or at least several(6+ in this case) weeks, on end. Even in 2011, this wasn't the case, with the exception of the heat wave that year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ffr (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:31 AM

5. As an addendum:

I should also note that this year also saw one of the strongest La Nina winters and springs around. That might really help explain why this winter was so warm this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:32 AM

7. Erm, La Nina ended in June of 2011. El Nino hasn't ramped up yet.

It's been an unusual lull between the cycles so far.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121018_winteroutlook.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ffr (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:52 AM

11. We had ripe tomatoes on the vine until November 10th (Kansas City)

And the leaves on the apple trees in the backyard haven't even turned yet.

It was like this last year, too, though not quite so late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:28 AM

2. Thanks for doing your part China

 

And to think, their citizens only consume 1/4 of the energy, per capita, of a US Citizen. But hey, they are doing their best to catch up.

The good news here is that we can all quit our shitty day jobs sooner than later. The bad news is that we likely wont be around to cash in that retirement plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:25 AM

9. It's imperative to get those west coast coal ports up and running

so China can contonue to grow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:56 AM

8. From Kevin Anderson, DD of the Tyndall Center:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/documents/anderson-ppt.pdf
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2012/11//502497.mp3

It's more than passing strange how much honest science resembles the views of us doomers.

From the PDF, regarding the delusional nature of most of the current authoritative projections about carbon:
...with few exceptions, these include:

Recent historical emissions sometimes ‘mistaken’ or ‘massaged’
 Short-term emission growth seriously down played
 Peak year choice ‘Machiavellian’ & dangerously misleading
 Reduction rate universally dictated by economists
 Geoengineering widespread in low carbon scenarios
 Annex 1/non-Annex 1 emissions split neglected or hidden
 Assumptions about ‘Big’ technology naively optimistic
 (‘Net’ Costs meaningless with non-marginal mitigation & adaptation)

Collectively – they have a magician’s view of time & a linear view of problems ?


Again from Anderson's talk:
For 4°C global mean surface temperature
5°C - 6°C global land mean
… & increase °C on the hottest days of:
6°C - 8°C in China
8°C - 10°C in Central Europe
10°C -12°C in New York

In low latitudes 4°C gives
up to 40% reduction in maize & rice
as population heads towards 9 billion by 2050

And this is from Fatih Birol (chief economist of the IEA):

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

Read the Powerpoint, listen to the mp3, and then tell me we're going to make it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:40 AM

10. Ouch. (n/t)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:31 PM

12. The top link the power point presentation, ...

is absolutely chilling, and impossible to call a crank.

4*C is only survivable for a while, and is only a transitory location to an inevitable 6*C rice by the end of century. Then its pretty much lights out the party is over, for all but the few who might find a little more time, in underground high tech solutions yet to be invented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CRH (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:19 PM

20. The PPT accompanies the lecture.

You can listen to the lecture as you go through the PPT. (Some of the graphs are screwed up due to the PDF export though.)

The lecture has a lot more in it than the PPT gets across (as tends to be the case with slides).

Kevin Anderson makes a very convincing argument as to why we're not getting our shit together and even the magic solutions like Thorium aren't going to help (we need a massive mind boggling WWII level buildout).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:13 PM

19. And people think I'm silly for being an alarmist.

*proud alarmist going on 5+ years now*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:36 PM

13. something about this doesn't feel like winning the future

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:27 PM

14. Here's how far behind the 8-ball we are:

Last edited Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

The IPCC says this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Similarly, to stabilise at 1000 ppm, this feedback could require that cumulative emissions be reduced from a model average of approximately 1415 GtC to approximately 1100 GtC.

Now a reduction of 315 GtC doesn't sound undoable, does it? The problem is, the 1415 number is apparently the average of all the IPCC models, and only one of them (the Big Kahuna, A1FI) bears any resemblance to what's actually happening outside your house. Even under generous assumptions, we're on track to put out almost twice that much - 2500 GtC - over the 21st century. That's definitely a PETM-class event - PETM may have been triggered by a release of ~3000 GtC.

In fact, if we stay on our current trend (which matches or exceeds the IPCC A1FI scenario) we'll have blown our entire 1100 GtC budget in another 40-50 years.

And of course, that's just to keep the atmosphere down to 1000 ppm in 2100. If we burn everything it looks like we will on the current trend, that would mean soaring past 1500 ppm. That's well into PETM territory.

Can we stop using virtually all carbon-based fuels by 2050? No? Well, the price is PETM II.

This is worth reading, both on the subject of PETM and also why the climate feedback from CO2 is likely understated by a factor of 2 in the current IPCC documents:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:12 PM

15. Tool Monkeys! Fuck Yeah!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:25 PM

17. Derp!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:25 PM

16. An interesting read, ...

but beyond my pay grade to comment. Have any idea who anonymous poster 'Gavin' might be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CRH (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:46 PM

18. I think gavin may be Gavin Schmidt, one of the lead contributors

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/
Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:20 PM

21. Thanks I was in the process of running an audit trail, ...

and that was the only gavin I came across. I was yet to find his creds. Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:28 PM

26. My opinion

is that we are beyond the tipping point. Just think emissions are accelerating even with a large expansion of alternatives still accelerating

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread