Remember me
▼ Content

Global Carbon Budget release 2016


Global Carbon Budget release 201614-11-2016 15:50
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.

Although it is too soon to say whether global emissions have peaked or not, this is a very interesting and significant result, and indicates that we can move to a lower emission economy without compromising economic growth.

The main reason for the stabilisation of CO2 emissions seems to be from the reduction of coal burning, both in China and in the US, although coal burning in India is on the increase, and will likely become a significant issue in years to come.

For the first time since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we are seeing a sustained de-coupling of economic growth from fossil fuel CO2 emissions. This result indicates that climate mitigation policies are starting to come into effect, and also shows that you don't need coal to have economic growth.

More details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949878
14-11-2016 19:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
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.

Show of hands: Who believes anyone can accurately compute all the fossil fuel emissions?

Gullible people, please identify yourselves.

By the way, why does anyone care about fossil fuel carbon emissions?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-11-2016 19:45
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.
14-11-2016 19:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.

There's one hand, IBdaMann.

Any others?


The Parrot Killer
14-11-2016 20:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Theoretically I can see how it would be possible, Fossil fuels are extracted and sold so I assume that its possible to keep track of that, I know of no controversy but you claim it's not I am however am not qualified to get in a detailed argument.

One thing I do know for certain, you are not qualified either.
14-11-2016 20:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
climate scientist wrote: Yes, well we could have a show of hands, however that is not very scientific.

... but it would most certainly be interesting.

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

No, that is not useful if you don't have anywhere near the data required to derive an accurate computation. You might as well just grab the season batting averages in Major Leage Baseball since 1945 and use that to determine your "carbon budget."

Not useful.

You don't have the data to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

Oh, and why do you care about atmospheric carbon from fossil fuels?


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.

Aaaah, I see. You are operating under the warmizombie misconception that CO2 is pollution.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-11-2016 20:46
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.
14-11-2016 21:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
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%).

I see that you felt it necessary to specify that CO2 is not harmful to humans. To what species is CO2 harmful?

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.

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

OK, I notice the shift to discussing actual pollution. So why do warmizombies never couch the topic in terms of reducing the "pollution footprint" and always speak in terms of reducing the "CO2 footprint"? It sounds like warmizombies are greatly confused.

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

Incorrect. Some people speculate that those pollutants cause those illnesses by way of an inference from a perceived statistical correlation.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-11-2016 09:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.


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


The Parrot Killer
15-11-2016 13:45
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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
15-11-2016 13:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
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

Great. Is there any reason you don't just use the word "compounds"? i.e. "...there are many other compounds that are co-emitted..."? Using the word "species" makes it look like you aren't comfortable discussing chemistry.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-11-2016 14:03
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.
15-11-2016 14:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
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?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-11-2016 15:56
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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?
15-11-2016 17:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
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?

On my way to St. Ives, I passed a man returning with his seven wives. Each of his wives had seven sons, each with a wife and seven sons.

How many people total were headed to St. Ives?




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


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-11-2016 18:46
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
[ ... it was his mother ... ]


Bingo! The doctor is a woman.
15-11-2016 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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?


.


The dice have already rolled. He is evading the whole bucket of worms entirely. That would have been betting the house way, though. One thing you gotta say about Climate Scientist, he is predictable.


The Parrot Killer
15-11-2016 22:04
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Oh dear... apparently I am still a man. I guess the hint was too subtle!
15-11-2016 23:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
16-11-2016 14:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
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.

So, for the record, when you write "species" you mean "compounds," yes?


I don't care what terms you use, I just ask that you specify up front.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-11-2016 14:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
climate scientist wrote: Oh dear... apparently I am still a man. I guess the hint was too subtle!

I'm sorry, subtlety and hints are insufficient. Unless you specify, your gender is unknown and English requires the masculine pronoun in such cases.

I'll take it that your preference is for the feminine pronoun to be used, yes?

I'll use whichever you wish, just specify up front.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-11-2016 22:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.


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


21-11-2016 17:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Ceist wrote:For some people, the boy's mother could also be his aunt.

Good point. In my country, we could just replace "Ceist jokes" with "West Virginia jokes."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Global Carbon Budget release 2016:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Uses for solid carbon2413-08-2019 18:21
The field of carbon sequestration?706-08-2019 19:17
carbon footprint16309-06-2019 20:27
Alberta throne speech followed by bill to repeal provincial carbon tax023-05-2019 09:20
It will be Very Hot and very Wet--We've exceeded 415ppm of Carbon Dioxide for the first Time since th3118-05-2019 19:28
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact