CO2 at new highs despite economic slowdown

[Aurora]

Reuters - 15/03/10

Levels of the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere have risen to new highs in 2010 despite an economic slowdown in many nations that braked industrial output, data showed on Monday.

Article continues ...

[clv101]

I was at a meeting last week where someone had calculated that global CO2 emissions in 2009 were 2.8% down on 2008 levels.

[2 As and a B]

Local and global.

It takes a while for local emissions to diffuse and air to mix around the globe.

A global trend can't be extrapolated from local measurement at a single place.

The article finishes on a note about local variations of CO2 due to vegetation growth and die-back and how the amount of vegetation has changed with temperature. What sort of winter have they just had in arctic Norway?

[PS_RalphW]

Cold.

Remember those frozen gas pipes?

Brrrr

[Blue Peter]

I was at a meeting last week where someone had calculated that global CO2 emissions in 2009 were 2.8% down on 2008 levels.

From the article:

Recession in 2009 in many nations has not apparently affected gains. The International Energy Agency estimated in September that emissions of carbon dioxide would fall about 2.6 percent in 2009 because of a decline in industrial activity.

Without going all lead foil hat, would this data lend support what memmel writes?


Peter.

[biffvernon]

I was at a meeting last week where someone had calculated that global CO2 emissions in 2009 were 2.8% down on 2008 levels.

Of course - we know that there was a drop in oil production after July 2008 and that is bound to lead to a drop in CO2 emissions, but it was only a small drop and so long as our net emissions after absorption in the carbon sinks is not zero or negative we have to expect a rise in atmospheric CO2.

There are other sources of CO2 beyond industrial activity such as deforestation and other land-use changes and methane that degrades to CO2 from thawing permafrost and Arctic methane hydrates. Then there may be changes in CO2 absorption by the oceans as water chemistry and temperature changes and in the land vegetation carbon sinks.

There does not seem to be anything surprising in the Reuters report about the Zeppelin data.

Whatever, 390 is a much bigger number than 350 and it's hard to see how the direction of travel is going to reverse.

[adam2]

A slight reduction in carbon emisions should mean that the carbon dioxide levels in the air should still increase, but at a lower rate, which is what appears to be happening.
Some politicians seem to think that a fall in emmisions will result in a fall in atmospheric concentrations, which it wont.

That is a bit like expecting a fall in the inflation rate to result in lower prices, whereas in fact it means that prices are still rising but at a lower rate.

[clv101]

Without going all lead foil hat, would this data lend support what memmel writes?

What does memmel write?

A slight reduction in carbon emisions should mean that the carbon dioxide levels in the air should still increase, but at a lower rate, which is what appears to be happening.
Some politicians seem to think that a fall in emmisions will result in a fall in atmospheric concentrations, which it wont.

For sure, I wasn't suggesting concentrations would fall because the emission rate has fallen!