Getting So Much Better All the Time

Can't wait for global warming? Maybe it can be arranged a little sooner, rather than later. According to this BBC story, CO2 buildup in the atmosphere is accelerating.

The rise in humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide has accelerated sharply, according to a new analysis.

The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year.

It says the acceleration comes mainly from a rise in charcoal consumption and a lack of new energy efficiency gains.

The global research network released its latest analysis at a scientific meeting in Australia.

Dr Mike Rapauch of the Australian government's research organisation CSIRO, who co-chairs the Global Carbon Project, told delegates that 7.9 billion tonnes (gigatonnes, Gt) of carbon passed into the atmosphere last year. In 2000, the figure was 6.8Gt.

"From 2000 to 2005, the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5% per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than 1% per year," he said.

The finding parallels figures released earlier this month by the World Meteorological Organization showing that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had accelerated in the last few years.

(via Kevin Drum)

Meanwhile, Dr. James Lovelock says nevermind.

The earth has a fever that could boost temperatures by 8 degrees Celsius making large parts of the surface uninhabitable and threatening billions of peoples' lives, a controversial climate scientist said on Tuesday.

James Lovelock, who angered climate scientists with his Gaia theory of a living planet and then alienated environmentalists by backing nuclear power, said a traumatized earth might only be able to support less than a tenth of it's 6 billion people.

"We are not all doomed. An awful lot of people will die, but I don't see the species dying out," he told a news conference. "A hot earth couldn't support much over 500 million."

Almost all of the systems that have been looked at are in positive feedback ... and soon those effects will be larger than any of the effects of carbon dioxide emissions from industry and so on around the world," he added.

Scientists say that global warming due to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport could boost average temperatures by up to 6C by the end of the century causing floods, famines and violent storms.

But they also say that tough action now to cut carbon emissions could stop atmospheric concentrations of CO2 hitting 450 parts per million -- equivalent to a temperature rise of 2C from pre-industrial levels -- and save the planet.

Lovelock said temperature rises of up to 8C were already built in and while efforts to curb it were morally commendable, they were wasted.

"It is a bit like if your kidneys fail you can go on dialysis -- and who would refuse dialysis if death is the alternative. We should think of it in that context," he said.

Personally, I'd prefer to go down fighting. We need to plan to control emissions, counteract their effects, and adapt to the coming heat, whether it's 2 degrees C or 8 - thought 8 would be really tough.

PS: Want to know a good way to get a climate scientist to curse and pound his head against the wall? Introduce in evidence the fact that today was the coldest day ever in Calgary, Canberra, or wherever. It's also a good way to tattoo "clueless" on your own forehead.

Green House Gas (GHG) induced global warming doesn't predict that today will be the warmest day ever (or not be the coldest day ever)in any given location, or that every hurricane season in every ocean will be the worst ever, or that each year will be warmer than the last. It doesn't predict that GHC's are the only forcing affecting climate. It does predict that GHCs are a continually increasing forcing which will swamp most or all natural variability, and that, barring a change in our collective behavior or some unforeseen miracle intervening, GHC effects produce changes that are likely to be very painful.

UPDATE and RECANTATION: Molnar and Belette have slapped me around and kicked me to the curb on this one. See comments. Thank goodness somebody smart is trying to keep me honest.

UPDATE UPDATE (RECANTING the RECANTATION): ...eppur si muove

Perhaps I was very slightly too humble and contrite. The quoted article does indeed say that "...the rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had accelerated in the last few years."

So did the WMO really say that? Well no. Figure 3 b. of this ghg bulletin (courtesy of Dr. Connolley) tells a rather different story. The rate of accumulation fluctuates - check it out.

Belette and Molnar are correct, of course.