Intro: "The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide has jumped by a record amount, according to the US department of energy, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming. The figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago."
The output of greenhouse gases has jumped by the highest amount on record.(photo: Public domain)
Greenhouse Gases Higher Than Worst Case Scenario
04 November 11
he global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide has jumped by a record amount, according to the US department of energy, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.
"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, the co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
The world pumped about 564m more tons (512m metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, an increase of 6%. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries, China, the US and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.
It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate department of energy figures in the past.
Extra pollution in China and the US account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.
"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, the director of the energy department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over."
Boden said that in 2010 people were travelling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.
India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8% in 2010.
"The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?" Reilly said. "Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world."
In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4-6.4 Celsius) by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees (4 Celsius).
Even though global warming sceptics have criticised the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.
Chris Field of Stanford University, head of one of the IPCC's working groups, said the panel's emissions scenarios are intended to be more accurate in the long term and are less so in earlier years. He said the question now among scientists is whether the future is the panel's worst case scenario "or something more extreme".
"Really dismaying," Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University, said of the new figures. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."
But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels. The US did not ratify the agreement.
In 1990, developed countries produced about 60% of the world's greenhouse gases, now it's probably less than 50%, Reilly said.
"We really need to get the developing world because if we don't, the problem is going to be running away from us," Weaver said. "And the problem is pretty close from running away from us."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
You laid out the facts perfectly.
Occupy Wall Street is fighting for our side in a war for the future food supply. OWS is about the only chance civilization has left to deal with this problem at all.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN
The people who are causing this will NOT suffer at all because of it. That's all that matters to them.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
If you want equity and justice you need to fight for it now. Don't expect the future to cause them to suffer with us. They won't. They've already made plans to deal with the tribulation they've unleashed on the rest of us.
Think of them as "raptured", unless we do something about it NOW.
I'm suggesting the 1% are the ones profiting from the use of fossil fuel, and are very happy to keep it that way, at all costs.
I'm suggesting the 1% are doing every thing in their power to make sure fossil fuel will continue to be used until none of it is left, regardless of the consequences to the rest of us.
POGO
(Walt Kelly)
on earth , we had our chance and we blew
it.
What as mismanaged world !
I mean, perhaps we'll 'morph into a gilled and carapaced new life form but I wonder if the greed and profit motive gene can be sluiced out of us, or if we really need to destroy ourselves to allow the rest of the planet to survive and flourish in a new age.
Some American Indian visions allow for the self-destructio n of the Wasicus and the re-birth of the peoples who live close to the planet's being. We could learn much from their creed that we must look at least seven generations beyond our own for wisdom and action in our own given time.
I just hope that it's not too late.
Yet the military of this country are the worst polluters on the planet, with all it's allied industries, cancerous residue and toxins dedicated to destroying everything in their paths, including ourselves.
Is there a power that can stand in the way of the current and heavily evolved collective, capitalist-driv en insanity?
Ever heard of a "cornered rat"? A cornered rat could be dangerous. It's no coincidence. We are not wrecked. We're capable of puting up a fight.
All the talk in the world won't make it any more pleasant.
Our children already face a NASTY future. That's no longer in question.
Two philosophies will continue to compete:
1. conservative (i.e. take care of yourself and kill everyone else)
2. liberal (i.e. cooperate with others and try to get through this together)
The conservative approach is inherently violent and suicidal.
The liberal approach is the only approach that can possibly lead to the long-term survival of human civilization.
Liberals, however, are completely unprepared for the level of violence that will be directed toward them.
If society is to survive, and believe me, it's in ALL of our best interests that it does, liberals must start to plan for the necessary cooperation, while simultaneously planning to defend themselves.
CONT.
THIS IS ABOUT OUR FOOD SUPPLY. Do we want to eat, or starve to death?
-We must elect grown-ups willing to face the facts and stop global warming, NOW.
-We must accept that it's too late to prevent global AND LOCAL catastrophe altogether.
-We must cooperate to secure food sources.
-We must learn to defend those food sources from the violent theft by the well-armed people who currently believe in the conservative worldview of "rugged indiviudalism".
no? we not only have to fight for jobs, but for air! both parties have agreed to kill all of us. the time to act is now, before it is much too late. money from polluters will be the end of most of human kind. much ealier than the turn of the century. are we really so dumb that we are not scared out of our mind? are we all in denial?
Teach them consensus decision-making , delegate driven democracies as in Chiapas, and compassion for the inheritors of the planet.
And kick ass.
Yeah, well, the view may be different but when they stick their heads out the window they are breathing the same air the rest of us are! That's what I don't get. Dirty, fouled air does not discriminate -- it's as bad for them as it is for us. It seems to be they have to be deaf, dumb, blind and STUPID not to understand that!
The other comment I want to make is that at this point it's a race to see if we can destroy the planet before our energy resources run dry. We passed the peak of conventional oil in 2006, according to the IEA. We will pass the general fossil fuel peak (all sources together) in the next 3-4 years. If we had a half a brain we'd be pouring our resources into sustainable alternatives so as to avoid returning ourselves to pre-fossil fuel carrying capacity of the world, maybe 2 billion people, but instead it appears we would rather get there the hard way - use the fuels as fast as possible, ruin the environment, and continue increasing the population to make the inevitable crash all the more horrendous.
We are so screwed.....
There is a correlation but it is slow. The oceans warm and absorb less CO2. There is a scheme to increase absorbtion in the sea. A Canadian promoter purchased a ship and was about to spread the nutrient that would increase phytoplanton in southern seas. The US threw him in jsil.
With very low Energy Return On Energy Input on all 'Green Energy' it takes a great deal more energy to develop, thus if we replace all the present high EROEI sources with low return sources we must expend a lot of energy to accomplish this. My rough estimate is that converting in 20 years would involve 20% higher CO2 during that period.
Secondly, peak oil per person, which I think is the important measure, was reached in 1979
Many of you cry "Ohh we need more regulations to get that 1% of evil corporate moguls, yet you completely overlook how your God Obama has consistently given waivers and stimulus money to the 1% and supports them by appointing them to many top positions. You do not even recognize the conflict of interest when he appoints Goldman Sachs VPs to these positions. Do you think they will create or enforce regulations on themselves? Do you realize when Monsanto employees become directors of say the FDA, they create regs that make small companies burdened with excessive limitations, while getting the Monsantos a pass, so they can eliminate competition.
The government has already toppled with Bush and Obama's help to the 1% and there is only one way to fix it. We must vote for the planet with our consumer dollars. It is the only power we the people have left. If you believe CO2 is bad and GW is real then stop buying any imported goods. Don't buy anything that comes from miles away and is packaged in foam and plastic. Buy foods fresh from your local farmer's market. Refuse to buy anything that is produced by 1 per-centers.
RSS feed for comments to this post