Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases

Nov 03, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer
Map shows 10 countries with most carbon emissions in 2010 and last 50 years of worldwide emissions

(AP) -- The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the outlined by just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries - China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of .

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.

"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the seems to be over."

Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

The world is slowly using more coal and less natural gas when it should be doing just the opposite because of climate change, Marland said.

In 2007 when the issued its last large report on , it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

"Really dismaying," said Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."

Explore further: Study casts doubt on climate benefit of biofuels from corn residue

3.2 /5 (32 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report

Sep 24, 2008

Despite widespread concern about climate change, annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement have grown 38 percent since 1992, from 6.1 billion tons of carbon to 8.5 billion tons in ...

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

A new measure of global warming from carbon emissions

Jun 10, 2009

Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University's Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Matthews, together with colleagues ...

Carbon emissions at record high: report

May 30, 2011

Carbon emissions are at their highest ever levels, stoking fears of a global temperature rise over the "dangerous" two degrees Celsius threshold, according to data cited by the Guardian newspaper.

Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

May 27, 2009

Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Apr 18, 2014

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 29

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sean_W
1.7 / 5 (38) Nov 03, 2011
What a bunch of panic-y petes. Why is it so impossible to *measure* the concentration of CO2 in the air instead of calculating it? Why would there be a decade of no warming while the CO2 continued to rise? Shouldn't all these positive feedback mechanisms that are supposed to magnify the warming continue working even if CO2 had remained flat just because of all the "danger" already in the air from decades ago.

Why can no one ask some questions instead of quivering and lashing out emotionally?
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (32) Nov 03, 2011
@Sean_W:

Yes, those pesky MIT professors, "panic-y petes" all! They've done so little to advance scientific exploration of the known universe. Perhaps we should just shut them down?

As to your point re: "lashing out emotionally", your entire post amounts to an emotional appeal. You have attempted to denigrate what amounts to the hard work of multiple scientists, who spend their workdays actually working towards understanding these processes.

Yet, you have offered nothing in place of the information you would ask us to ignore. No facts, no evidence, no new information.

Your entire post amounts to: "I really don't like this, so why do they have to show us this stuff?"

Please try just a wee bit harder than that! I know you can do it.
ToSeek
4.2 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2011
A decade of no warming is still well within expected climate variability. Even so, every year beginning with a "2" is among the warmest years ever measured.
gmurphy
4.4 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2011
@Sean_W, how the does article suggest 'quivering' or 'lashing out emotionally', the only emotional outburst on this page came from you.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (23) Nov 03, 2011
@Sean_W: Let me respond to your lashing out:
1) You asked: "Why is it so impossible to *measure* the concentration of CO2 in the air instead of calculating it?" The answer is that they do both. They measure the amount in the air (which changes over the surface of the earth) and they also calculate how much is emitted by people. The reason is that the difference between the amount emitted and the amount measured is the amount taken up by the earth (other than in the atmosphere). Knowing that number helps to understand how increases and decreases in emissions affect the amount in the air.

2) You asked: "Why would there be a decade of no warming while the CO2 continued to rise?" The answer is that there has not been a decade of "no warming." You have been watching too much Fox news or listening to Rush.

Continued:
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (18) Nov 03, 2011
@Sean_W: (continued)
3)You asked: "Shouldn't all these positive feedback mechanisms that are supposed to magnify the warming continue working even if CO2 had remained flat just because of all the "danger" already in the air from decades ago." The answer is yes. Again, part of the reason for measuring and calculating is to be able to identify the feedback. You can't understand that if you couldn't understand the first answer above.

4) You asked: "Why can no one ask some questions instead of quivering and lashing out emotionally?" As can be seen from the posts so far, yours is the only one that lashes out emotionally (and having no facts behind it). So, I think we have to wait for you to answer this one. As for quivering, is that self-identification? There are a number of folks on this forum who speak out and I don't believe any of them are "quivering" unless it is in anticipation of giving reasonable answers to your Luddite questions.
martinwolf
5 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2011
now total up the amount of materials manufactured in a warm process...steel,bread,rubber,plastics,gasoline,cooking of organic raw materials to ensure safe to eat by humans,etc...total all the emissions from those sources(industrial) alone if possible and compare to the 10,000,000 million metric tons of C02 emissions...reported here..its not just the coal...its our civilizations dash to have it all mentality and it is incredibally wasteful in general..control of waste would reduce emissions magnificently and cost effectively creating employment at the same time..
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2011
"Why is it so impossible to *measure* the concentration of CO2 in the air instead of calculating it?" - SeanW

Educate yourself. Loser.

"Keeling Curve". Google is your friend.
jonnyboy
1.5 / 5 (23) Nov 03, 2011
a monster increase and a decade of no warming does not seem to add up. Time to rework the models......again (sigh).
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 03, 2011
"Remember Jim Hansen of NASA told us in 1988 to expect 24 degrees in
25 years."
"a tenacious British mathematician named Nic
Lewis started looking into the question of sensitivity and found that the only
wholly empirical estimate of sensitivity cited by the IPCC had been put through
an illegitimate statistical procedure which effectively fattened its tail on the
upward end it hugely increased the apparent probability of high warming at
the expense of low warming. When this is corrected, the theoretical probability
of warming greater than 2.3C is very low indeed."
"Handing the reins of power to pseudoscience has an unhappy history. Remember
eugenics. Around 1910 the vast majority of scientists and other intellectuals
agreed that nationalizing reproductive decisions so as to stop poor,
disabled and stupid people from having babies was not just a practical but a
moral imperative of great urgency."
They still do support eugenics.
http://www.bishop...resy.pdf
Doom1974
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2011
a monster increase and a decade of no warming does not seem to add up. Time to rework the models......again (sigh).


Johny boy, better educate yourself instead of sheepishly listening to FOX news and Anthony Watts. There has been no "no-warming" decade!! And of course a single decade is too small to reveal anything. Look at the record since 1880 and the BEST data. ,
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 04, 2011
Nope, no one remember that except members of the Tinfoil Hat community, because it was never said.

You are a liar RyggTard.

Like Every other Libertarian/Randite who has ever existed.

"Remember Jim Hansen of NASA told us in 1988 to expect 24 degrees in 25 years." - RyggTard

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2011
A sustained increase of 6 percent per year has a doubling period of about 12 years.
rawa1
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2011
These sudden jumps can serve as an evidence of AGW as easily, as against it. We should realize, our carbon dioxide production is rather steady, so that every sudden change of its concentration should be interpreted like secondary effect of its desorption from soil and marine water. For example, the global warming leads to the melting of permafrost and to release of huge amount of methane, which will oxidise to carbon dioxide in atmosphere. The recent volcanic eruptions could play their role too.

IMO it's a good opportunity to correlate the carbon dioxide levels with concentration of another gases in atmosphere.
jonnyboy
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2011
a monster increase and a decade of no warming does not seem to add up. Time to rework the models......again (sigh).


Johny boy, better educate yourself instead of sheepishly listening to FOX news and Anthony Watts. There has been no "no-warming" decade!! And of course a single decade is too small to reveal anything. Look at the record since 1880 and the BEST data. ,


exactly the point...look at the BEST data not the headlines...10 years. no rise
Nerdyguy
4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2011
"Remember Jim Hansen of NASA told us in 1988 to expect 24 degrees in
25 years."

Perhaps Jim Hansen was wrong. Now, stick to the topic please.
JacquelineS22
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2011
A very disturbing (but not surprising) result considering there is a recession.
I am accustomed to seeing the CO2 levels expressed as ppm. I can't find the 6% increase in emissions expressed in this usual fashion.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2011
We should realize, our carbon dioxide production is rather steady

It has? I think not.
http://en.wikiped...missions

sudden change of its concentration should be interpreted like secondary effect

1) See above
2) a sudden rise may also mean that buffer systms (like solubility in water or increased algae takeup) are full. I.e. that we have pased the 'tipping point'.

How such 'secondary effects' argue against AGW you have to explain.
Cave_Man
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
If your computer is not running off electricity powered by wind or sun then you are part of the problem no matter where you come down on the issues. Everyone likes to talk and analyze while they fart out even more pollution in the process.
Nerdyguy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
If your computer is not running off electricity powered by wind or sun then you are part of the problem no matter where you come down on the issues. Everyone likes to talk and analyze while they fart out even more pollution in the process.


You're right of course. But, that shouldn't bar anyone from wanting to improve the situation. For the most part, energy production is a result of high-level government policy decisions combined with (in free markets anyway) corporate production efforts.

So, by your logic, we should all just sit around and twiddle our thumbs until such time as we're all solar?

Hardly. Better to analyze and discuss. Who knows - some individuals on here may put these ideas into real-world use.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 04, 2011
"Remember Jim Hansen of NASA told us in 1988 to expect 24 degrees in
25 years."

Perhaps Jim Hansen was wrong. Now, stick to the topic please.

But he is 'right' now?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2011
"But he is 'right' now?" - RyggTard

He never said 25' in 25 years. You are a liar.

And this isn't the first time you have been caught in a lie. There have now been several dozen instances.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.

You are no exception RyggTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2011
"look at the BEST data not the headlines...10 years. no rise." - JonnyBoy

Oh look another liar.

Here is the BEST data over the last decade.

http://tamino.fil...d01b.jpg

Best shows a 0.14'C rise over the last decade.

http://tamino.wor...ts-foot/
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2011
@R2, on Hansen. Are you a mindless damn diatom on global warming. You must be, because you cant see the very facts in front of your eyes. The debate is over man! You lost, GW is now the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and your kids have 50 years.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2011
@R2, Also, I've listened to Hansen in debate with one of your kind, and if he was off by 24 years you should thank your lucky stars. The hammer is coming down on man made global warming.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2011
if he was off by 24 years you should thank your lucky stars.

But that is not science.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2011
@R2, and when do you remember your aunts birthday?
Never mind, the bottom line is you don't care about the environment. Just admit that.
Cave_Man
3.5 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2011
You're right of course. But, that shouldn't bar anyone from wanting to improve the situation. For the most part, energy production is a result of high-level government policy decisions combined with (in free markets anyway) corporate production efforts.

So, by your logic, we should all just sit around and twiddle our thumbs until such time as we're all solar?

Hardly. Better to analyze and discuss. Who knows - some individuals on here may put these ideas into real-world use.


While I understand your mode of thinking I tend to disagree.

How is buying yourself a wind turbine or solar panel a governmental policy decision?

As of right now it's more cost effective in the long run assuming electrical prices continue to go up or even stay where they are at.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
"But that is not science." - RyggTard

Correct. Your continuous stream of lies is not science.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.

RyggTard is no exception to that observation.

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.

Low tolerance for pain? The reason may be in your genes

Researchers may have identified key genes linked to why some people have a higher tolerance for pain than others, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 66th Annual ...