Global Carbon Budget release 2016

climate scientist wrote: The Global Carbon budget 2016 has just been released, and shows that for the 3rd year in a row, global fossil fuel emissions have held almost stable, even though economic growth has been strong.

climate scientist wrote:
Yes, well we could have a show of hands, however that is not very scientific. One might as well have a show of hands about "how many sides does a triangle have?" or "does gravity exist?" or "is there such a country as the USA?" but this is not a very useful exercise.

What is more useful is to collect some data, and do a statistical analysis. Such data and analyses show that in most developed countries (e.g. Europe, the US, Australia, etc.) fossil fuel emissions are known to within a few percent. For example, total annual UK fossil fuel emissions are known to within about 3%, as shown in this report, published by the UK department of energy and climate change: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511698/20160331_1990-2014_UK_GHG_final_end_user_emissions_and_uncertainties.pdf

In many Asian, African and South American countries, fossil fuel emissions are less well known, with uncertainties ranging around the 10-20% mark, depending on which country one is referring to.

As shown by this nice Global Carbon Budget info-graphic (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/Infographic_Emissions2016.jpg), 2015-2016 global fossil fuel emissions are known with -1 to +1.8% uncertainty. Since fossil fuel emissions have typically been increasing at a rate of about 2.4% per year (over the 2004-2013 period), then given the uncertainties, we can be confident that fossil fuel emissions have significantly stalled in the last 3 years.

And this is an important finding, because as I mentioned above, economic growth has not stalled. This means that there has been a de-coupling of CO2 emissions from economic growth, and that we should be able to at least partly reduce our CO2 emissions without preventing economic growth.

This is great news. It means that even if you do not believe in the fact that climate change is real or happening, it is definitely worthwhile reducing our fossil fuel emissions, given that reductions in fossil fuel emissions are very tightly coupled to reductions in atmospheric pollutants that are harmful for human health.

Thus, we can clean up the air quality in our cities while reducing fossil fuel emissions and maintaining economic growth all at the same time. A win-win situation for everyone, given that in the UK alone, there are 40,000 premature deaths every year from air pollution.

climate scientist wrote: Yes, well we could have a show of hands, however that is not very scientific.

climate scientist wrote: What is more useful is to collect some data, and do a statistical analysis.

climate scientist wrote: Thus, we can clean up the air quality in our cities while reducing fossil fuel emissions and maintaining economic growth all at the same time.

climate scientist wrote: Just to be clear, CO2 is not a pollutant, and it is not harmful to humans (except at very high levels e.g. 4%).

climate scientist wrote: But when we combust petrol and diesel in cars, and coal and gas in power plants, there are many other species that are co-emitted, alongside the CO2 emissions, such as particulate matter (often referred to in articles and the scientific literature as PM10 and PM2.5) and other gases, such as nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and ozone, or substances that produce ozone.

climate scientist wrote: These pollutants are known to cause lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, and other serious illnesses.

climate scientist wrote:
Just to be clear, CO2 is not a pollutant, and it is not harmful to humans (except at very high levels e.g. 4%).

But when we combust petrol and diesel in cars, and coal and gas in power plants, there are many other species that are co-emitted, alongside the CO2 emissions, such as particulate matter (often referred to in articles and the scientific literature as PM10 and PM2.5) and other gases, such as nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and ozone, or substances that produce ozone. These pollutants are known to cause lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, and other serious illnesses.

Renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar do not, however, produce any of these pollutant gases or particles, and therefore even if one does not believe in climate change, there would be huge benefits to human health in both the developed and developing world if we can reduce our fossil fuel emissions in cities (which is where ~70% of fossil fuel emissions are from), and we can do so without compromising economic growth. So like I said before, a win-win situation, even for those who don't believe in climate change.

I'm guessing that you didn't mean to write the word "species" or did you?

climate scientist wrote:

I'm guessing that you didn't mean to write the word "species" or did you?

Yes, I did intend to use the word species. I am not referring to biological species here, I am referring to chemical species (e.g. CO2, CO, CH4, H2O, N2O, etc.)

See point 2.2 here: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/species

Into the Night wrote:So...since you said CO2 is not harmful to humans, that must include the lack of any effect on global temperature, right?

climate scientist wrote:
A father and son have a car accident and are both badly hurt. They are both taken to separate hospitals. When the boy is taken in for an operation, the doctor says 'I can not do the surgery because this is my son'. How is this possible?

[ ... it was his mother ... ]

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:So...since you said CO2 is not harmful to humans, that must include the lack of any effect on global temperature, right?

Thank you for asking this particular question but it is one that Climate Scientist is forced to EVADE. Naturally he has to insist that CO2 causes the global average temperature to increase *and* to catastrophic levels. This then causes a two-pronged problem he has shown he cannot handle:

1. I jump in and ask him to explain, in some falsifiable way, how the temperature increases without violating thermodynamics, and ...

2. setting aside question 1. above for the moment, you then ask how this "not being harmful" is nonetheless catastrophic to humanity.

So, if you were a betting man, would you wager that Climate Scientist will roll up his sleeves and tackle these follow-on questions or do you think he will EVADE the whole bucket of worms entirely?


.

climate scientist wrote:
Oh dear... apparently I am still a man. I guess the hint was too subtle!

climate scientist wrote: I apologise IBdaMann. The word 'species' is used very commonly in my field of research when referring to chemical species, and I forgot that many members of the public are not aware of the word 'species' being used in this way.

climate scientist wrote: Oh dear... apparently I am still a man. I guess the hint was too subtle!

Surface Detail wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Oh dear... apparently I am still a man. I guess the hint was too subtle!

Yup. Not the sharpest pencil in the box, our IBdaMann.

Ceist wrote:For some people, the boy's mother could also be his aunt.