A few days ago several outlets reported that the year 2011 set a record, surprise surprise, for global carbon emissions with, presumably if physics is to be believed, a record bump higher in the atmosphere's ability to keep sunlight's rebirth as IR around for a while longer as heat. A report from non-profit supported by several government's including that of the US, the Global Carbon Project, put the numbers in the journal Nature Climate Change. 2010 had set a different sort of bad-news record, up by 5.9 percent over 2009 and reflecting in part the global economic recovery. 2011 did not keep that pace but the absolute number kept growing, up another 3 percent or a total 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide form burning of fossil fuels. China and India are leading the charge into a high carbon world.
A good place to start is with the AP story by Seth Borenstein because he wrangled the numbers further, coming up with the end-of-2011 emission rate as 2.4 million pounds of CO2 per second. As he explained in a msg to ksjtracker (a few typos corrected):
If you look at the paper, I had to change it from tons of carbon to tons of co2 and then from metric tons to US tons, so while I’m converting I decided to see how much per day, how much hour, how much per minute and eventually I came up with this number 2.4 million pounds a second of co2 sent into the air. Two million pounds a second. Too me that’s a stunning number. Also the study authors say we’re unlikely be limited to a 2 degree limit that’s the international goal.
And while we’re on numbers, a tiny little thing about the 2 degree goal. Officially the goal is 2 degrees C over pre-industrial. For me that doesn’t work because people don’t know temperatures pre-industrial nor do they in the US use Celsius (unfortunately). So if you take the 2 degrees C (and) subtract the 0.8 degree rise since preindustrial, then you get 1.2 degrees C from now. That then translates to 2.16 degree F (1.2 times 1.8), so it’s fair to say 2 degrees F from now. So essentially scientists and diplomats talk 2 degrees _ meaning 2 degrees C since pre-industrial _ but it’s fair for me to use 2 degrees F.
Isn't that industrious of Borenstein with his sense of the industrial age as an awfully fuzzy benchmark for most of us? Plus, given the murkiness of this particular set of numbers, he wisely rounded them to the nearest one or two significant figures. It's a shame he could not find a way to fold a little discussion into the story itself , touching on metric v. English units. Also, on the distinction of the room we have left from right now, if we are to avoid what some way will be disastrous temperature rise, from how much room we had back when coal became a popular boiler fuel for ships, trains, and factories. Plus, the difference between tons of carbon and tons of CO2.That would for many readers be welcome information and provide a sense why global warming statistics may not always seem to jibe. Plus, he'd have better explained in the story that the two degrees he is talking about is red-blooded American two degrees like god and the flag demand, in Fahrenheit, and it's about the margin between us right now and the approximate ruination of Earth as we've known it so they say. But his piece is short and to the point – and with custom-rendered numbers. Salutations in any case.
By the way, a reminder. We're pretty easy to hook here at ksjtracker. So if readers (or authors, as in this case) send us story suggestions – dinging or singing praises or otherwise noting something unusual in media accounts in science-related beats – they have a good chance of getting a bite from us.
The news generally has relatively little coverage. That's in keeping with the nature of the news. While it was real news for a year or two that US emissions, due mainly to economic sputters, are down, the overall message of a consistent global increase is not notable news per se. It's been going that way for decades now. Save the fat headlines for when and if the numbers go into general retreat.
Other stories on carbon emission:
- NYTimes – Justin Gillis, John M. Broder: With Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Record High, Worries on How to Slow Warming; You see the problem for a reader who looks at both this and the AP story. This says 3.6 degrees F warming is the hazard line, AP says it's 2 F. If one does not know their starting points are different, confusion is certain. The Times men provide a more analytical piece. The details are predictable and not news. But it's a more complete and still compact package.
- Telegraph (UK) Louise Gray: Doha: Latest figures show CO2 emissions are rising ;
- BBC – Mark Kinver: Carbon emissions are 'too high' to curb climate change ; What ho? This story is about a projection of 2012 emissions, moving the ball forward from the Global Carbon Project figures. The Doha meeting may have made such broad calculation a timely thing to announce.
- BBC – Greenhouse gases hit record high ; Yet another ste of numbers, these from the World Meteorological Organization.
- Gristmill – Philip Bump: The world is producing 2.4 million pounds of CO2 a second ; Borenstein's calculations get a boost here, with an appropriate nod to the AP.
- Time Magazine – Bryan Walsh : As the World Keeps Getting Warmer, California Begins to Cap Carbon ; Walsh does a good job blending the statistical news with events in Doha as well as in California where a carbon cap and trade program is getting underway. It's the sort of job that Time has historically done well (and don't miss another post today, by Faye Flam, on an instance at Time of an egregious departure from its norm).
- Climate Central – Andrew Freedman: Global Carbon Emissions Hit Record High, Report Finds;
Grist for the Mill: Global Carbon Project Annual Update ; WMO Press Release ;
Leave a Reply