Hardloper wrote:
How much have CO2 emissions been reduced?
Manmade CO2 emissions have been reduced by an estimated 25-30%.
Hardloper wrote:
How much have CO2 emissions been reduced?
Manmade CO2 emissions have been reduced by an estimated 25-30%.
This plot shows the annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 using the weekly observations to which Fisky is referring. The cyan line is each week's observation minus the same week from the previous year. This effectively removes the annual cycle which has a peak to peak amplitude of about 8 ppm.
There remains a week to week variation on the order of 1 ppm and longer term excursions from the mean that go for a year or more. The latter is illustrated by the black line which is a 53 week moving average of the cyan line. These are explained in part as being correlated with natural phenomena. For example high spikes corresponding to the 1998 and 2016 large el nino events and a sustained dip corresponding with the Mt Pinatubo volcano starting in 1992.
The blue line is scaled annual anthropogenic CO2 emission to show the correlation between emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Notably, one can see slight dips corresponding to economic depressions in the early 80s, early 90s, and the 2008 event.
The challenge is to detect a statistically significant change attributable to a drop in emissions in the presence of these confounding factors. Assuming there is the 25% reduction in emissions quoted above* that takes us back to circa 2000-2005 emission levels which resulting in atmospheric growth not all that different than present. Thus I doubt there will be conclusive evidence for Fisky's hypothesis the reduction in emissions is sustained for a year or more. There are (as briefly mentioned on the NOAA page) techniques using C14 tracing that would more sensitive to this sort of thing and are already part of the body of evidence** that indicates CO2 rise is anthropogenic.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/Figure_1-1.jpg
* My understanding is that the 25% reduction in emissions is anecdotal based on a manufacturing region in China and is likely a lower bound at best. I've seen more credible projections generally under 10%, so would be proportionately more difficult to detect.
** It's pretty straightforward to show the long term increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 70 years at least is approximately half the cumulative anthropogenic emissions. Without violating conservation of mass, it's not clear to me how anyone rationalizes that the rise isn't anthropogenic.
As of 5/1, atmospheric CO2 weekly level stood at 416.82. That's an increase of 8.86ppm from the seasonal low last year. The previous year, the 5/1 change from the seasonal low was 8.90, an insignificant change in rate of rise.
I agree that it doesn't look like there will be enough of a change from year to year to have any statistical significance. I'll continue to update until mid May levels are reported.
As of 5/14, atmospheric CO2 levels were 416.87. This should be the annual peak, although one more week will be needed to see for sure. This year, the seasonal change from low to high was only 9ppm compared to 10ppm the previous year. It appears that there was a slowdown in rise due to the drop in CO2 emissions. However, on the same website, the NOAA says it's too small to be significant. I was surprised, but upon reading some skeptical websites, the human contribution to CO2 emissions is estimated to be only 4-5% with the rest coming from plants and other natural sources. Here's an excerpt from the NOAA explaining that the temporary reduction was likely too small to be measured.
The... "drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the "missing" emissions do not stand out."
Statement from NOAA declaring annual peak monthly CO2 with discussion about detectability of COVID related emissions reduction:
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2636/Rise-of-carbon-dioxide-unabated
As of 6/4, weekly average atmospheric CO2 levels were 417.43. The seasonal direction seems to be moving down so this will probably be the high for the year. This year, the seasonal change from low to high was only 9.5 ppm compared to 10ppm the previous year. On the same website, the NOAA says that the decline in CO2 emissions was too small to be measured and the change was within the natural seasonal variation.
There's no clear cut conclusion we can draw from this. I'm surprised that such a massive reduction in transportation and factory emissions wouldn't even be measurable.
This is my last post on this thread unless there's some interesting discussion.
Here's an article considering the potential effects of a reduction in sulfate emissions as a result of the pandemic. Sulfates have a known, but poorly quantified cooling effect on the climate leading to speculation that 2020 may challenge 2016 as the warmest year on record which would be notable since 2016 was a much stronger El Nino year.
In the context of the current thread a warm year would tend to above trend atmospheric CO2 levels, masking the reduction in CO2 emissions.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08062020/sulfate-emissions-coronavirus-arctic-heatwaves
Just the flu, bruh wrote:
what corona has shown us is that people will ignore science as long as possible if the science inconveniences them
The corona outbreak in the US is just an accelerated version of Global Warming.....people deny deny deny until it's too late. When the stats show them that they were tragically wrong.. they shrug their shoulders and say..."well, it's too late now....might as well just carry on"
It's proven that it's usually better to side with science rather than political convenience.
This was the first response to the initial post and it was perfect. Thread might as well have ended right there.
From the WMO, to date, any COVID related slowdown in the rise in atmospheric CO2 is indistinguishable from normal variation, as expected.
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/wmo-greenhouse-gas-bulletin-state-greenhouse-gases-atmosphere-based-global-1This entire thread is invalidated because it relies on the premise that manmade CO2 emissions are coming from the burning of fossil fuels, ignoring the amount of fires around the world that are contributing to CO2 rise, as well as the off gassing taking place as a result of higher temperatures in tundra landscapes.
Any reduction in fossil fuel use as a result of Covid will be totally offset by the CO2 released in these other forms. In short, there is no control for this test, which makes it scientifically invalid.
ICOS preliminary projection of 2020 CO2 emissions is down 6.7% over 2019.
Atmospheric concentration in running average (green dot) is similarly down, but, I'd still argue that's largely coincidental given the magnitude of confounding factors.
doo doo wrote:
This entire thread is invalidated because it relies on the premise that manmade CO2 emissions are coming from the burning of fossil fuels, ignoring the amount of fires around the world that are contributing to CO2 rise, as well as the off gassing taking place as a result of higher temperatures in tundra landscapes.
Any reduction in fossil fuel use as a result of Covid will be totally offset by the CO2 released in these other forms. In short, there is no control for this test, which makes it scientifically invalid.
This.
Rojo's original post is clearly an attempt to discredit climate change science. But it's based on bad logic. One cannot conclude that if CO2 levels continue to rise amid COVID related economic contraction, then CO2 levels aren't tied to human activity. The planet has already warmed significantly and therefore the upward trend in CO2 levels can't be turned back on a dime, especially not through what was really only a brief reduction in fossil fuel consumption.
Move on from the denial.
NOAA report on 2020 atmospheric CO2 levels. Nothing particularly surprising here. Atmospheric methane annual growth highest in 38 year record, likely dominated by biological sources.
The economic recession was estimated to have reduced carbon emissions by about 7 percent during 2020. Without the economic slowdown, the 2020 increase would have been the highest on record, according to Pieter Tans, senior scientist at NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory. Since 2000, the global CO2 average has grown by 43.5 ppm, an increase of 12 percent.
The atmospheric burden of CO2 is now comparable to where it was during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period around 3.6 million years ago, when concentrations of carbon dioxide ranged from about 380 to 450 parts per million. During that time sea level was about 78 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra.
As we have discussed many times, I don't see manmade CO2 as being a factor in climate change and, further, I don't see climate change as a major problem. My belief is that climate change is a natural process that, on balance so far and into the foreseeable future, will have a net positive effect on humanity. That said, this is an interesting article, especially for its information on methane. According to the article, methane is 28x more potent in climate change over a 100 year time frame than CO2. What's your take on the rise in methane? Global fossil fuel use was down. Global livestock production was either down or unchanged. That leaves wetlands as the most likely source. We have no way to control outgassing in wetlands. My take is that attempts to control CO2 are futile and, after reading this article, not even addressing the major culprit... methane. Since humans and fossil fuels account for only 4-5% of global CO2 production AND since methane is a bigger driver, dropping fossil fuel consumption will have no effect on climate change.
According to the article, methane is 28x more potent in climate change over a 100 year time frame than CO2. What's your take on the rise in methane? Global fossil fuel use was down. Global livestock production was either down or unchanged. That leaves wetlands as the most likely source. We have no way to control outgassing in wetlands.
I expect if there was a attribution for the rise in methane the news release would have said so. Forest fires, increasing rain, deforestation, and thawing of permafrost in the high Arctic are also probable suspects.
My take is that attempts to control CO2 are futile and, after reading this article, not even addressing the major culprit... methane. Since humans and fossil fuels account for only 4-5% of global CO2 production AND since methane is a bigger driver, dropping fossil fuel consumption will have no effect on climate change.
Methane has a large effect per unit but there is considerably more CO2 released, so it is the dominant factor.
https://www.climate-change-guide.com/images/radiative-forcing-by-emissions-and-drivers-infographic.jpgMoreover, atmospheric methane breaks down over a modest period (on the order of a decade or two) whereas CO2 does not. If we could magically stop emissions methane would return to pre-industrial levels relatively quickly while significant levels of CO2 will remain for millennia.
Comparing anthropogenic CO2 emissions with natural emissions (your "4-5%" statement) is a red herring. The relevant math is "natural emissions + anthropogenic emissions - natural absorption". In your percentages this is about 95% + 5% - 98.5% = 2.5%, which is to say atmospheric CO2 rises by an amount equal to about half of the anthropogenic emissions annually.
So I think this was an interesting thread. It's a complex problem and an important one to fix, because man made or not, it's certainly affecting our climate.
I appreciate your insight. But to fisky's point, why did we continue to see an increase in atmospheric CO2 if emissions were down during lockdowns? It seems like using your formula, we wouldn't have continued on essentially the same trajectory in 2020.
the reason we didn't see a reduction, because we have so f&cked the earth, that a one year reduction in CO2 is not enough to see changes. We need massive efforts over many years to thwart the destruction of the earth.
Rojo is a climate denier. His whole starting of this thread was purely BS. Attempting to throw a red herring out there.
And frisky he's just a hard right conservative who cares nothing about the earth--only about his own enrichment.
in the words of my hero Greta Thunberg--"HOW DARE YOU"
Honest Poster wrote:
Citizen Runner wrote:
. . .The relevant math is "natural emissions + anthropogenic emissions - natural absorption". In your percentages this is about 95% + 5% - 97.5% = 2.5%, which is to say atmospheric CO2 rises by an amount equal to about half of the anthropogenic emissions annually.
So I think this was an interesting thread. It's a complex problem and an important one to fix, because man made or not, it's certainly affecting our climate.
I appreciate your insight. But to fisky's point, why did we continue to see an increase in atmospheric CO2 if emissions were down during lockdowns? It seems like using your formula, we wouldn't have continued on essentially the same trajectory in 2020.
There was about a 7% reduction in the anthropogenic term, so we emitted 93% of the 5% term in the carbon cycle budget.
95% + 0.93*5% - 97.5% = 95% + 4.65% - 98.5% = 2.15%
So the central expectation is slight reduction in the rate of growth, but that's obscured by the typical year to year natural variation. That this is to expected was the essence of my 4/29/2020 post.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Honest Poster wrote:
So I think this was an interesting thread. It's a complex problem and an important one to fix, because man made or not, it's certainly affecting our climate.
I appreciate your insight. But to fisky's point, why did we continue to see an increase in atmospheric CO2 if emissions were down during lockdowns? It seems like using your formula, we wouldn't have continued on essentially the same trajectory in 2020.
There was about a 7% reduction in the anthropogenic term, so we emitted 93% of the 5% term in the carbon cycle budget.
95% + 0.93*5% - 97.5% = 95% + 4.65% - 98.5% = 2.15%
So the central expectation is slight reduction in the rate of growth, but that's obscured by the typical year to year natural variation. That this is to expected was the essence of my 4/29/2020 post.
That makes sense. It is a little disheartening, given that human impact has very little effect, given that this was about as drastic of an intervention, even if unintentional, that we could expect to see. Certainly there are technologies worth investing in, but even reducing by 20% (very optimistic), would basically do nothing if your formula is correct.
For the record, I believe it's obvious that climate change is a huge problem that we need to be thinking about, regardless of what is driving it, because we'll suffer the consequences regardless. But it's becoming clear to me that we may be targeting the wrong part of the equation if we want this world to survive.
Bill Gates book is reasonable (if dry) on the scale of the problem.
Whilst every small change still helps, ultimately the ground breaking changes would likely come through carbon neutral power. If you look at something like creating Concrete alone, it's staggering the amount of co2 emissions, but rarely do we focus on things like that. It needs a complete revision on how we source the energy for these things.