Global Carbon Emissions Reach Record 10 Billion Tons

SmokestacksVia ScienceDaily:

Global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased by 49 per cent in the last two decades, according to the latest figures by an international team, including researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia.Published December 4 in the journal Nature Climate Change, the new analysis by the Global Carbon Project shows fossil fuel emissions increased by 5.9 per cent in 2010 and by 49 per cent since 1990 — the reference year for the Kyoto protocol.

On average, fossil fuel emissions have risen by 3.1 per cent each year between 2000 and 2010 — three times the rate of increase during the 1990s. They are projected to continue to increase by 3.1 per cent in 2011.

Total emissions — which combine fossil fuel combustion, cement production, deforestation and other land use emissions — reached 10 billion tonnes of carbon* in 2010 for the first time. Half of the emissions remained in the atmosphere, where CO2 concentration reached 389.6 parts per million. The remaining emissions were taken up by the ocean and land reservoirs, in approximately equal proportions.

Read more here.

, , , , ,

  • BuzzCoastin

    thanks for the reminder
    i’m gonna turn that off right now

    • Jin The Ninja

      i’m leaving to beijing in a week, how bad is it right now?

      • Requiem

        BAD

      • BuzzCoastin

        it’s always kinda chunky
        but it’s the little stuff that kills ya

        just spent a few weeks in Laos & Cambodia
        where the air was cleaner than here

        what part of Beijing will you be staying in?

        • Jin The Ninja

          dong cheng. i’m only there for 9 days, then i’m going to visit family in HK and Singa. haven’t been there since i was a lowly undergrad!

          • BuzzCoastin

            ah, the old city
            should be nice and chunky there
            i’m out in the eastern burbs
            where it’s not much better
            but a little less crowded

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    thanks for the reminder
    i’m gonna turn that off right now

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient
  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient
  • Science Manipulated

    I still don’t believe our everyday CO2 emissions have any negative effects on the environment. While driving down a typical road the CO2 coming from your tailpipe is just going to be sucked up by all the vegetation, you know since plants and trees BREATHE CO2. Same with the wood, coal, or oil you burn in your house for heat, it’s more CO2 for the vegetation! 
    Basically what I’m pointing out is that consumer CO2 emissions from cars, houses, people, animals, etc. Do not effect the environment negatively as “they” might have you believe. It’s the corporate factories and power plants that pump the CO2 high up above the treeline causing it to circumvent the normal process of being absorbed by the vegetation and in turn released as oxygen. 

    Even then still, the CO2 levels rise naturally as the planet heats up, and not the other way around. 

    I may seem like an earth-flatter to some of you, not accepting this “man made climate change” argument. It just seems silly to think, with a planet full of living organisms that breathe CO2, we are doomed if we pump it into the environment. You know, Cycle of life and all that jazz. 
     

    • Andrew

      Ever hear of deforestation?

      • Science Manipulated

        Ever hear of managing a forest, or regeneration harvest? 

        Deforestation, I’m sure, it’s not bad enough to effect the biosequestration of CO2 on a large scale. Their are systems in place that discourage this act.

        Every central power or ruling class will tell you we are doomed this way or that way because they want to use fear as a mechanism to control us and push through their policies. I’m not falling for it.       

        • Andrew

          The central powers and ruling classes I hear are telling me not to worry
          and keep driving to their stores and workplaces and gas stations.

          You might want to do some reading on how much deforestation there has been in the past century.  There are no longer enough plants to sequester all the carbon we (and I mean the world, not just the US) are pumping into the atmosphere now.

    • Mr Willow

      And so. . . what’s your point?

      We should not stop chopping down trees—or take it a step further and conclude it would be perfectly alright to chop down more? We should cease our pursuit for alternatives for fossil fuels, and therefore continue to blow the tops off mountains, continue digging enormous holes into the ground for oil and coal, which kill people every day (especially with lax regulations)? That we should stop researching solar power, wind power, and wave power (among other alternative energy sources)? That we should just do what we’ve been doing since the dawn of the industrial age and just presume that everything is going to be alright because either God is going to wipe the slate clean or Nature is so self-sufficient that it will clean the mess faster than we are making it?

      Whenever I hear the sorts of sentiments as the one you just related, that is all I hear: that all this time and energy spent researching and building windmills and solar panels is wasted and we should just continue in the manner that we have been for the past hundred years (thereäbouts) and just forget about everything associated with the environment because it will all work itself out because we have no impact on how it behaves. 

      To be clear, I could care less about ‘Global Warming’, ‘Climate Change’, or Al Gore, I personally think all the research is irrelevant as has been this ‘debate’ on the issue, but I think it is beyond idiotic to absolve ourselves from any sort of blame or responsibility for negatively affecting the environment when we have been making the air visible (industrial smokestacks), making water flammable (fracking), and killing innumerable organisms (plant and animal [and human if you prefer the distinction]) with our practices of fuel retrieval and use. The long term effects that have been proposed are largely inconsequential. because the short term effects are there for all to see.

      So again: What is the point of siding with the ‘skeptics’ on this issue unless you believe that we should just continue with what we’ve been doing and therefore leave the cleanup to Nature or God?

  • Science Manipulated

    I still don’t believe our everyday CO2 emissions have any negative effects on the environment. While driving down a typical road the CO2 coming from your tailpipe is just going to be sucked up by all the vegetation, you know since plants and trees BREATHE CO2. Same with the wood, coal, or oil you burn in your house for heat, it’s more CO2 for the vegetation! 
    Basically what I’m pointing out is that consumer CO2 emissions from cars, houses, people, animals, etc. Do not effect the environment negatively as “they” might have you believe. It’s the corporate factories and power plants that pump the CO2 high up above the treeline causing it to circumvent the normal process of being absorbed by the vegetation and in turn released as oxygen. 

    Even then still, the CO2 levels rise naturally as the planet heats up, and not the other way around. 

    I may seem like an earth-flatter to some of you, not accepting this “man made climate change” argument. It just seems silly to think, with a planet full of living organisms that breathe CO2, we are doomed if we pump it into the environment. You know, Cycle of life and all that jazz. 
     

  • Andrew

    Ever hear of deforestation?

  • Science Manipulated

    Ever hear of managing a forest, or regeneration harvest? 

    Deforestation, I’m sure, it’s not bad enough to effect the biosequestration of CO2 on a large scale. Their are systems in place that discourage this act.

    Every central power or ruling class will tell you we are doomed this way or that way because they want to use fear as a mechanism to control us and push through their policies. I’m not falling for it.       

  • Jin (仁)

    i’m leaving to beijing in a week, how bad is it right now?

  • Jin (仁)

    i’m leaving to beijing in a week, how bad is it right now?

  • Requiem

    BAD

  • Mr Willow

    And so. . . what’s your point?

    We should not stop chopping down trees—or conclude the contrary and it would be perfectly alright to chop down more? We should cease our pursuit for alternatives for fossil fuels, and therefore continue to blow the tops off mountains, continue digging enormous holes into the ground for oil and coal, which kill people every day (especially with lax regulations)? That we should stop researching solar power, wind power, and wave power (among other alternative energy sources)? That we should just do what we’ve been doing since the dawn of the industrial age and just presume that everything is going to be alright because either God is going to wipe the slate clean or Nature is so self-sufficient that it will clean the mess faster than we are making it?

    Whenever I hear the sorts of sentiments as the one you just related, that is all I hear: that all this time and energy spent researching and building windmills and solar panels and just continue in the manner that we have been for the past hundred years (thereäbouts) and just forget about everything associated with the environment because it will all work itself out because we have no impact on how it behaves. 

    To be clear, I could care less about ‘Global Warming’, ‘Climate Change’, or Al Gore, I personally think all the research is irrelevant as has been this ‘debate’ on the issue, but I think it is beyond idiotic to absolve ourselves from any sort of blame for negatively affecting the environment when we have been making the air visible (industrial smokestacks), making water flammable (fracking), and killing innumerable organisms (plant and animal [and human if you prefer the distinction]) with our practices of fuel retrieval and use. The long term effects that have been proposed are largely inconsequential. because the short term effects are there for all to see.

    So again: What is the point of siding with the ‘skeptics’ on this issue unless you believe that we should just continue with what we’ve been doing and therefore leave the cleanup to Nature or God? 

  • Andrew

    The central powers and ruling classes I hear are telling me not to worry
    and keep driving to their stores and workplaces and gas stations.

    You might want to do some reading on how much deforestation there has been in the past century.  There are no longer enough plants to sequester all the carbon we (and I mean the world, not just the US) are pumping into the atmosphere now.

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    it’s always kinda chunky
    but it’s the little stuff that kills ya

    just spent a few weeks in Laos & Cambodia
    where the air was cleaner than here

    what part of Beijing will you be staying in?

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    it’s always kinda chunky
    but it’s the little stuff that kills ya

    just spent a few weeks in Laos & Cambodia
    where the air was cleaner than here

    what part of Beijing will you be staying in?

  • nowhereman

    Things are happening
    to the climate. Most changes are part of a natural cycle. However, I can’t
    belief man hasn’t had a small part in it. We have, just by interacting with the
    environment, effected the environment. Depending on the level of our interaction
    there are measured consequences. Earth systems were designed to function
    certain ways, we have corrupted some of those with overuse and exploitation. We
    have not been good stewards.

    In regards to CO2
    emissions and the statement that there were 
    “record” global levels in 2010. Two different set of data are
    being used to make that judgment. One is a record of  air bubbles in ice core samples allegedly
    spanning millions of years. The other is air samples taken directly from the
    atmosphere since 1959. It seems to me that data taken from two different
    environments cannot be a used to  declare
    record highs. How accurate are the ice core 
    samples in reading CO2? There are reports of degradation of CO2 in the
    bubbles.

  • nowhereman

    Things are happening
    to the climate. Most changes are part of a natural cycle. However, I can’t
    belief man hasn’t had a small part in it. We have, just by interacting with the
    environment, effected the environment. Depending on the level of our interaction
    there are measured consequences. Earth systems were designed to function
    certain ways, we have corrupted some of those with overuse and exploitation. We
    have not been good stewards.

    In regards to CO2
    emissions and the statement that there were 
    “record” global levels in 2010. Two different set of data are
    being used to make that judgment. One is a record of  air bubbles in ice core samples allegedly
    spanning millions of years. The other is air samples taken directly from the
    atmosphere since 1959. It seems to me that data taken from two different
    environments cannot be a used to  declare
    record highs. How accurate are the ice core 
    samples in reading CO2? There are reports of degradation of CO2 in the
    bubbles.

  • Jin (仁)

    dong cheng. i’m only there for 9 days, then i’m going to visit family in HK and Singa. haven’t been there since i was a lowly undergrad!

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    ah, the old city
    should be nice a chunky there
    i’m out in the eastern burbs
    where it’s not much better
    but a little less crowded

  • Johnny 5

    Here’s some simple chemistry for you guys. The primary chemical in our gas is octane, the combustion that takes place has two main products Carbon Dioxide(CO2)  and  Water(H20). H2O, btw, is the pimary greenhouse gas responsible for any heating of the planet, not just because it makes up about 4.5% of our atmosphere, is also absorbs a much larger(more wavelengths) sprectrum of Infrared radiation(heat) from the sun that has a possibility of warming our planet… CO2, a minor greenhouse gas only makes up .04% of the atmosphere( and to get that reading you would have to be stationed over a volcano taking your reading…hint: Mauna Loa observatory..look it up) and absorbs a much much smaller array of wavelengths of light , comparatively, a tiny amount..
     With that being said.. the combustion I spoke of earlier produces 8 moles of CO2 and 9 moles of H2O for every 1 mole of Octane and 12.5 moles of Oxygen. That would mean that H20 levels would skyrocketing like CO2(supposedly is)…and well they just don’t at all.  That would also mean that oxygen levels were decreasing even faster, and well they’re just not…at all….CO2 levels will never be large enough to make an impact on us or any other lifeform on this planet, and CO2 will never have the capacity to absorb any more wavelengths’ of light than it does now, therefore, armed with just basic chemistry and atmospheric composition( you can get that anywhere) you can teach all your absent minded friends that don’t want to look it up, that still live in lala land and think they need to keep buying ‘green”, you can teach them how this silly science is easily disproven. Your all welcome, now please tell every teacher you know, so they can stop lying(not on purpose, just on misinformation) to their students, and we can start moving out of the dumbness that is overwhelming our country. Thank you. And don’t forget to vote for freedom this year.

  • Jb5491

    Nobody has ever wanted to end research on those things you spoke of, we just don’t need the government involved , let the inventors worry about that stuff. The goverment scientists are getting paid for producing relatively nothing, and on what real scientists call “silly science”, and to top that off it’s coming out of our pockets. And the government is now getting in the way of the use of the only fuel that has produced the civilization that we now have. It’s time for them to exit and stop using the nature excuse, stop being naive, we can’t control what happens to this planet, negatively or positively, we’re not gods. Even though, at times, it may seem we have the ability, we don’t.

    • Mr Willow

      let the inventors worry about that stuff.

      The inventors’ whose patents are purchased by corporations—for relatively nothing, by their standards—with almost no intention of ever producing said product? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

      Like oil companies owning patents on the batteries now used in electric cars (http://www.ridelust.com/who-owns-the-patent-on-that-battery-in-my-electric-car/ ), biofuel (http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/02/15/bp-dupont-biofuels-jv-takes-gevo-to-court/), and solar panels (http://www.democratunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2688:how-big-oil-had-controlled-the-solar-industry-&catid=68:economy ) for decades without the slightest intention of ever doing anything with them—only owning them so as to keep out competitors, to block the development of alternatives, and thus create a monopoly in the energy field (the trifecta being oil, coal, and gas, but the monopoly being fossil fuel). 

      The only reason any of these things are in development currently (because, if they had been all along, they would have been fully implemented by now), is that there is a great demand because of the climate change debate. It isn’t about the companies wanting to provide cleaner or more sustainable energy sources; they simply acknowledge they can make a buck from them. 

      It’s time for them to exit and stop using the nature excuse, stop being naive, we can’t control what happens to this planet, negatively or positively, we’re not gods.  

      Tell you what, light up a bunch of cigarettes and leave them burning around your living room, and tell me if you’re affecting the air. Buy some plants, even, and see if they don’t die. Same thing, smaller scale.

      Humans also created the conditions that led to the Dust Bowl in the 1930’s, because of over-use of the land. We are more god-like than you think. 

21
More in Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, Energy, Environment, Fossil Fuels
Third World Canada

The Canadian media's furor and spin on the following story is demonstrable proof that any and all attempts to de-legitimise Indigenous self-government and exploit Aboriginal territories for resources is not...

Close