CO2 and Methane Emissions Continued Rise in 2008 Despite Economic Slump
24 April 2009
| Anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, fossil fuel emissions, world GDP, and world population for the past century. CO2 data from Antarctic ice cores (green points), Mauna Loa Observatory (red curve), and the global network (blue dots). Credit: NOAA. Click to enlarge. |
Emissions of two of the most important climate change gases increased last year, according to a preliminary analysis for NOAA’s annual greenhouse gas index, which tracks data from 60 sites around the world.
Researchers measured an additional 16.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)—a byproduct of fossil fuel burning—and 12.2 million tons of methane in the atmosphere at the end of December 2008. This increase is despite the global economic downturn, with its decrease in a wide range of activities that depend on fossil fuel use.
Viewed another way, for every million molecules of air, another 2.1 molecules of carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere last year and stayed there—slightly less than the 2.2 parts per million (ppm) increase in 2007. Total global concentrations topped 386 ppm, compared to 280 ppm before the industrial revolution began in the 1800s.
Think of the atmosphere and oceans taking in greenhouse gases as a bathtub filling with more water than the drain can empty, and the drain is very slow. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the point where they match levels that can be absorbed by Earth’s ecosystems. Only by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and increasing energy production from renewable resources will we start to see improvements and begin to lessen the effects of climate change.
—Pieter Tans, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL)
The increases in CO2 and methane during 2008 are slightly less than those measured in 2007, but fall well within the range of yearly fluctuations from natural changes, according to NOAA experts.
The rise in CO2 levels varies from year to year along with plant growth and decay, wildfire activity, and changes in soil conditions. Emerging from that natural variability is a consistent upward trend produced by burning coal, oil, and gas for transportation and industry.
Methane levels rose in 2008 for the second consecutive year after a 10-year lull. Atmospheric concentrations increased by 4.4 molecules for every billion molecules of air, bringing the total global concentration up to 1,788 parts per billion, according to NOAA data.
Methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there’s far less of it in the atmosphere and is measured in parts per billion. When related climate affects are taken into account, methane’s overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide growth has increased by more than two percent each year since preindustrial times, doubling every 31 years, according to a study published in the April issue of the journal Atmospheric Environment by David Hofmann, James Butler, and Tans. All are researchers at ESRL.
Even during the 1970s, when fossil fuel emissions dropped sharply in response to the oil crises, emissions remained high enough that CO2 levels continued to climb exponentially, similar to the way compound interest builds.
The carbon dioxide record isn’t immune to temporary dips lasting several years or more. A slowdown occurred in 1930–36 after the Great Depression and again during the 1940s, possibly because of World War II.
The large volcanic eruptions of Mt. Agung (Indonesia) in 1963 and Mt. Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991 each slowed CO2 buildup for several years. Volcanic emissions cool the lower atmosphere and scatter sunlight. Those changes can both reduce plant respiration, a process that releases carbon dioxide, and boost photosynthesis, which removes carbon dioxide from the air.
Atmospheric CO2 growth is best reflected by the world population trend. The two have tracked each other extremely well over the past century. A break in the close relation between population growth and CO2 growth would be a clear sign of progress in the inevitable need to limit atmospheric CO2.
—David Hofmann
Resources
David J. Hofmann, James H. Butler, Pieter P. Tans (2009) A new look at atmospheric carbon dioxide. Atmospheric Environment, Volume 43, Issue 12, April 2009, Pages 2084-2086 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.12.028
CO2 and CH4 emissions rising, atmospheric CO2 still rising again, but GLOBAL AVERAGED low troposphere and surface temperatures, both over land and water, are precipitously dropping third year in a row. Plus upper ocean layer temperatures and heat content is also dropping.
May be it is time to recognize to some zealots that GHG are not principal drivers of Earth energy balance.
Just may be.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 24 April 2009 at 02:11 AM
I read that the rate of change has decreased, as you would expect if global energy consumption dropped as a result of the crisis. The rise of CO2 of course will only stop if we abandon the burning of fossil fuels altogether. This obviously has not happened. So I don't really understand the surprise expressed in the article.
Posted by: Arne | 24 April 2009 at 03:50 AM
Andrey,
You should read this:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/
Tamino can explain it far better than I can. The message: If you have a noisy signal (surface temperatures) and a relatively small trend (0.2 deg/decade), it is easy to find a 10 year downward trend.
The 3 years you mention are not significant, not by a long shot.
Posted by: Arne | 24 April 2009 at 04:02 AM
@Andrey
As Anne says, a long term trend with a noisy signal is not going to be picked out over 3 years according to those 'zealots' called statisticians. The climatologists and models (more 'zealots') also account for the superimposition of other factors apart from GHG forcing. The 11 year solar (sunspot) cycle has been shown to have short term effects (e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm).
We are currently in a particularly pronounced solar minimum. According the the wikipedia entry:
'During 2008-2009 NASA scientists noted that the Sun is undergoing a "deep solar minimum," stating: "There were no sunspots observed on 266 of [2008's] 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days'
But hey. Just more zealots who cannot even count a few dots on the sun correctly....
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | 24 April 2009 at 07:06 AM
If this report is correct, it has serious implications.
In the US, Gasoline consumption is below 2004 levels and Diesel consumption is equal to the famed 1990 level. If this decrease is not enough to keep CO2 from rising then we are in alot of trouble.
Posted by: JosephT | 24 April 2009 at 08:26 AM
This is not surprising. The amount of Co2 generated by the world went down slightly in 2008 due to the recession.
It did not stop, not at all.
If you want atmospheric CO2 to reduce, you probably have to reduce CO2 generation by 80 - 90%, not 2 or 3% - globally.
You won't do this by unplugging phone chargers or buying CFLs or Prii (although the latter two will help a bit).
So you better start building the reactors now, or plan for a "post industrial" society.
Posted by: mahonj | 24 April 2009 at 10:43 AM
Anne/Tom, haven't you learnt by now that truth and reason doesn't work on trolls? You have to use mortar fire. ;^)
Posted by: ai_vin | 24 April 2009 at 11:25 AM
BTW, if anyone is offended by that post just put it down to me being kept awake for the last 48 hours.
Posted by: ai_vin | 24 April 2009 at 11:30 AM
A couple of conclusions can possibly be drawn from this. First is that easy emission cuts won't be enough. People are doing it tough yet they still need a lot of fossil fuel just to keep going. The second is that I suspect baseload electrical generation doesn't reduce in a recession the way steel, cement and transport does. Therefore there has to be an alternative to coal fired baseload.
Posted by: Aussie | 24 April 2009 at 03:30 PM
Mahonj,
I prefer a Manhattan Project style adoption of photovoltaic energy production as opposed to nuclear fission reactors; and if we don't get it DONE (not started) in the next 40 years or so, we will be toast. Clearly, there is nothing sustainable about civilization powered by burning hydrocarbons; and prohibitive fission reactors don't last long enough to support our investment.
Posted by: JC | 24 April 2009 at 04:21 PM
Usual explanation after another failed prediction of “record hot year” by climate modelers&camarilla: cooling is weather, warming is climate.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 24 April 2009 at 04:29 PM
"bathtub filling with more water than the drain can empty.."
This is it. If the earth can absorb 50 units but we put in 100, it rises. If we put in 90 because of a slow down, it continues to rise, just not as fast.
Posted by: SJC | 24 April 2009 at 07:33 PM
@ Andrey:
For a real laugh check out the latest from the clan, broadcast by ABC:
"TONY EASTLEY: In recent years all the headlines have been about ice melting in some of the globe's chilliest places but it seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic."
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2550320.htm
Arghh! This damned cooling is ruining our parade!
ai-vin: I took you for more of a sniper man.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 25 April 2009 at 06:33 AM
@ Andrey: By all means do read Reel's link but more importantly you should try to understand what they're actually saying.
BTW in the Antarctic the average yearly temperature is 40 below so even with the warming of about three degrees Celsius that we've seen in the last 50 years it's still going to be cold enough for sea ice to form. No surprize really.
Posted by: ai_vin | 25 April 2009 at 08:18 AM
“and prohibitive fission reactors don't last long enough to support our investment.”
Interesting point JC. This year 4 of the oldest of the 104 operating US reactors will enter the 41 year of operation. New reactors are being designed to last 60 years.
Biomass and geothermal power plants also last a long time too. However, wind and solar equipment is exposed to a very harsh environment and do not seem to last long enough to make a difference.
So JC when you want to promote something as a solution, you may want to pick some different attributes.
Posted by: Kit P | 25 April 2009 at 10:30 AM
Ai Vin:
Warming of last 30 years was mostly limited to North hemisphere. Antarctica actually cooled slightly (except for Antarctic Peninsula, about 5% of Antarctica landmass).
It is long time ago noticed fact, that Arctica and Antarctica cools and warms in contra phase. Theories explaining this phenomena are abound, but nothing definite yet has been produced.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 26 April 2009 at 12:01 AM