Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall Worldwide In 2009
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that the good news is that emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn and an increase in carbon-dioxide uptake by the oceans and by plants on land. One big factor was La Niña, a natural seesaw shift in climate that takes place across the tropical Pacific every three to seven years, where the climate is cooler and wetter over large regions of land in the tropics, encouraging plant growth in tropical forests. However the bad news is that even with the decrease in emissions the overall concentration of CO2 rose from 385 ppm in 2008 to 387 ppm in 2009, as concentrations continue to rise even as emissions slip because even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas. Many countries have agreed in principle to try to stabilize emissions at 350 ppm by century's end, which would result in a 50 percent chance of holding the increase in global average temperatures to about 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels."
After all, it's much warmer where I am right now than it was at the same time 4 years ago. 4 years ago in my region, we had a blizzard on Thanksgiving. This year, it's about 50F. Clearly, the globe is warming uncontrollably, and since we all know CO2 emissions are causing climate change, CO2 emissions must have gone up.
(No, I'm not being serious)
I am officially gone from
The temporary decrease in heavy industry (and thus, fall in CO2 emissions) due to a slow economy is another reason to take advantage of the situation and re-enter with a strong economy with renewable technologies in place. Unfortunately, not many people are down for spending the money to invest in a down economy. You can bet we'll see a sharp uptick in relative emissions over the next few years as more and more areas "rebound" with the same old technologies driving it.
It's always confirmation bias!
I am a long time treehugger and hated to see any harvesting of any forests at all. This is because I feel that trees are the best way of combating climate change - they regulate climate in the surrounding area. When the Romans attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD and cut down all the olive trees around the city for combat fortifications, the water retention of the soil was reduced significantly. The place referred to as the land of milk and honey became a desert wasteland. However, in recent years I have begun to acknowledge the importance of cutting trees as much as I hate it. The main threats to the forest now are invasive species (Think Chestnut blight, Gypsy moth, etc) and brush fires. The Forest Service's budget is TINY in comparison to the cost of these threats, and so selective harvesting of trees to make up for budget shortfalls has become a necessary evil. It is better to remove a few trees in one area and be able to fight off threats to the forest as a whole than to have an entire species (Chestnut, Oak, dogwood) die off reducing diversity.
Another plus is that any harvested trees are SEQUESTERING CO2. This is important - a dead tree either rots or is burnt in a fire RELEASING the stored CO2. As part of a dining room table, the Carbon just stays there. The answer is MORE trees and MORE harvesting of trees, as must as I hate the latter part.
But I'm 100% sure that I'd prefer to live in a world where we don't give trillions to greenie scam artists in return for them telling us that they can fix that pesky human inclination to have kids and give them a decent standard of living.
We need to lose about 3 billion people, then keep the numbers down there until we get our eggs out of this basket. Anyone not engaged in trying to find a way to achieve that solution humanely is just profiting from the problem.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
FoxNewsHeadline("[...] emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn [...]")
=>
"Bush's efforts to fight global warming continue to be more effective than anything the Democrats have done."
Of course my argument is completely bogus - that was the point. The "(No, I'm not being serious)" was to indicate that I was aware of all the problems you mentioned, and was making an attempt at satirizing exactly the stupidity you describe.
I am officially gone from
recession -> CO2 emmissions drop,
so,
mandate CO2 emmissions drop -> recession
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Except that the largest sources of those burning "stuff" are not who the U.N. and those seeking to profit on climate change are going after, developing nations. Which makes sense on the one hand because they have little money, except for China. China was exempted from the Kyoto Protocols as a "developing country" which not only rendered the Kyoto Protocol a joke (because China has money), it revealed the true nature of the protocol, to fleece the West.
You can thank La Niña, the souring oceans (and dying corals), and a slight downturn in deforestation due to the bad Economy. Can we reflect on this story again next year after this "improvement" has its chance to work its magic?
Because either you or the journalist are sloppy. They are describing the rate of change of CO2 which is emission - uptake. The decrease in the rate of emissions is like a deceleration. However according to the rise in PPM, emissions - uptake > 0. The confusion is equating emission with rate of change of concentration, which is incomplete.
We can't "stabilize emissions at 350 ppm". We can stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 350 ppm by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 85%. We can do this by a combination of obtaining energy from sources other than fossil fuels (nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) and using the energy more efficiently (CFL and LED lighting, increased insulation, hybrid vehicles, etc.).
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Short and Sweet:
* An increase in carbon-dioxide uptake does not cause emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas to fall.
* Emission units are kg/s not ppm.
* Primarily should be followed be ONE cause not TWO
There's a difference between television sensationalism with the sole intent of capturing the interest of ignorant viewers, and actual scientific discourse. I don't think anyone qualified to have an opinion in the matter is taking the position dkleinsc parodied.
People die on their own. Life has a 100% mortality rate. Wait a while, don't replace 3 billion people that died of natural causes (i.e. life) and you've lost 3 billion from the total population without actively killing anyone.
Emissions were reduced due to economic decline.
Atmospheric levels were reduced due to a climate cycle that increased absorption.
Atmospheric levels actually increased due to increased emissions.
So emissions went down and up, and levels went down and up. All in the same year.
Science. We could use some here.
I see why you are getting confused. The climate is a complicated system. There isn't just one mechanism controlling the global temperature. The one you always hear about in the news is CO2 (which is a complicated system of its own), but as you have learned here today, there are other factors like the variations in the sun's output and La Niña & El Niño. El Niño was the reason that 1998 was so hot (which is why if anyone tries to use that year to argue either for or against climate change then you know that they are being deliberately misleading).
To explain how CO2 emissions can go down and yet the temperature can go up (ignoring the other factors), imagine that you have a bath filled with water. If you pull the plug then the water level drops. But if you turn on the tap to pour in the same amount of water that is going down the drain, then the water level will remain steady. It is not that the water stops going down the drain, but that the lost water is being replaced. This represents the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
CO2 is absorbed out of the atmosphere by various means, and more is emitted into the atmosphere from various sources - some of which are man made.
Back to the bath, what happens if you turn up the tap so that more water is going into the bath than can go down the plug hole? The water level rises. If you put in an extra 5% of water then the level will increase by that amount because it simply has nowhere else to go.
So does the water level go down if you reduce the water emissions by 1.3%? No, because you are still adding in 3.7% more water than the equilibrium. That is why your quoted text said "even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas".
That quote is a bit misleading, because as I said before there are many sources of CO2, so it is not just the amount pumped out by humans that is causing the problem. Some people have tried to use this fact as a reason for not doing anything about global warming, saying that it is not man's fault. It is a dubious argument, and in the end a pointless one. If we want to control the environment then the easiest solution is to adjust the portion of CO2 that is generated by man.
"Forests naturally deal with fire quite well thank you"
Agreed, but that's not the point the gp was trying to make. The average stable forest isn't the o2 source or co2 sink that some environmentalists would have you think. Only by removing matter from the forest and using it/burying it where it won't rot will it sequester co2 thereby reducing humanity's effect.
The point being a stable forest releases co2 from wood rotting or being burnt. If it absorbed co2, then its mass would constantly increase. What is actually happening in a stable forest is that there is an almost perfect balance and therefore a healthy stable forest is more or less carbon neutral.
Now if you were to occasionally cut down the wood and put it to other uses (e.g. housing or tables as gp mentions) and allow new growth, then you have a co2 capturing scheme. If you cut it down and build concrete buildings in it's place or just let it turn to desert/scrubland then you're the human race and deserve what you'll get...
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Difficult to cite television shows. But just last week NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Syfy, Bravo, Telemundo, etc celebrated "green week" and it included some of those tales about how heat waves prove global warming.
I also thought it was funny when they said last winter's record snowfall proved global warming as well. Something about warmer air holding more snow. Yeah. Sure. Except it wasn't a record anywhere but Baltimore and DC. Elsewhere like PennsylvaniA the snowfall was not unusual, AND the record was set in the 1950s (5 feet).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control.
Educate yourself, Mr. Libertarian. Start off by memorizing the definitions of "negative externality" and "tragedy of the commons". I would then direct you to the fact that the only solution to dealing with negative externalities is to internalize them. And that means government intervention.
And before you say it, libertarians typically attack this problem through private property ownership. ie, land pollution becomes a property rights issue, and is litigated in court accordingly. Unfortunately, air ownership makes no sense, and so there's no sensible way to deal with CO2 emissions in this way.
In short: your idealized theory is about as practical, in the real world, as communism. Deal.
You need some practice in reading comprehension (as do most news reporters and slashdot submitters).
It's easy:
The rate at which we added CO2 to the atmosphere went down.
The rate at which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere went up.
Those two changes combined were not enough to lower the rate of pumping CO2 into the air below the rate that nature can remove it, so the actual amount of CO2 in the air went up.
Science, it's already being used here.
Well, let's keep to the scientific accuracy meme here: "Cold" does not equal "Snow." At very cold temperatures, it won't snow. Ask anyone who lives in the upper Midwest. It is only at moderately cold temperatures that you actually get snowfall. So, if a region that has historically not seen snow around Jan/Feb because it's usually somewhere around -20 or so, starts exhibiting a pattern of snow, this does not prove that the region is now colder. In fact, it's evidence that the region is now probably warmer.
While that does not in itself prove warming on a global scale, the fact (Fact, not opinion, and not television sensationalism) that the ice caps and glaciers are melting does indicate that it is warmer. That doesn't mean it doesn't still get cold, even where the glaciers are, but it means the number of below freezing days are fewer, giving the glacier more time above freezing to melt. That's really not all that hard to comprehend. What's harder for most people to understand is that we're not talking about an overall average climate change of large amounts. Average warming by just a few degrees is enough to get us in trouble.
The fact is, as will be supported by any just about any climatologist not employed by an energy company, that global warming does exist. Whether or not it's caused by man is up for a bit more debate, though it's pretty inconceivable that a species could balloon from around 600 million or so in 1700 to nearly 7 billion now, and in that time that species has gone from riding around on horses to putting billions of cars on the road, planes in the sky, ships on the water, etc, all of which burn carbon-based fuel, without having some sort of impact on the environment.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
+1.
People who are against population control are Cold-hearted. The US is projected to be ~600 million by 2050 and the EU will be almost 1000 million. Due to an oil shortage (raising prices to ~$1000 a barrel) there will be a widespread shortage of food in people's homes, and millions of Americans and Europeans will starve.
People who choose this future are cold hearted. A wiser course is to limit the amount of babies produced so population will (1) hold steady from 2010-30 and then (2) go down to around 200 million by mid-century. To choose a future with unrestrained births, where millions of people will be starving is the ultimate inhumanity.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You're confusing regular pollution with CO2. CO2 is not even classed as a pollutant in the US because it isn't harmful to humans or the environment directly. We have reduced emissions quite a bit over the years. Catalytic converters, sulphur scrubbers in coal plants, etc. However, these innovations do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
CO2 is emitted whenever you burn stuff. In developed countries, we actually have cars, so we burn a lot more gas. We also use a lot more electricity, so we burn more coal. Some countries like Indonesia do a lot of slash and burn. It's significant, but nothing close to what power generation and cars do. The major effect from slash and burn is really the loss of the forest CO2 sink.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Likewise given a choice between watching millions starve to death circa 2030 due to overpopulation and not enough food to go-round, or imposing a one baby policy, I'm choosing the second as more humane.
Libertarians don't believe that it's your choice to make for everyone else. Nor to say what the choices are for others. Personal opinions about what might be more humane/less cold-hearted notwithstanding. You may only impose things on yourself.
You may, however, try to persuade others to voluntarily go along with what you think is important.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100