All you ever wanted to know about the Global Carbon Budget but were afraid to ask

Some of the world's top climatologists, under the collective title of the Global Carbon Project, have released what is widely considered the definitive accounting of the greenhouse-gas emissions situation. And the news is, as you might expect, not good. Nature's Climate Feedback bloggers sum it up as "We're all doomed." The full report is a lot to swallow, but here's what policy makers and anyone thinking of casting a vote in either the Canadian election next month or the American election in November should know:

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are growing x4 faster since 2000 than during the previous decade, and above the worst case emission scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The efficiency of natural sinks has decreased by 5% over the last 50 years (and will continue to do so in the future), implying that the longer it takes to begin reducing emissions significantly, the larger the cuts needed to stabilize atmospheric CO2.

All these changes have led to an acceleration of atmospheric CO2 growth 33% faster since 2000 than in the previous two decades, implying a stronger climate forcing and sooner than expected.

Barry Brook, director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide in Australia tells Reuters that this means "CO2 concentrations could hit 450 ppm by 2030 instead of 2040 as currently predicted." Keep that in mind when examining the candidate's emissions-reductions proposals. If Brook is correct, none of the schedules, not even Canada's Green Party plan, are sufficient to avoid hitting 450.

And here are two of the most important graphs from the report. The first measures carbon emissions in petagrams, but 1 Pg = 1 billion tonnes, which is how such figures are usually delivered in popular reports.


The second describes the other really troubling trend: the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2, as a fraction of the total emissions. Again, things are worse than previously feared.


It is impossible to resist repeating the phrases "above the worst case emission scenario" and "sooner than expected." If you're willing to get more depressed, there are lots more of that kind of thing in a PDF of the project's summary PowerPoint.


More like this

A Reuters story about startling high levels of carbon dixoide in the air near the North Pole caught my eye this week. Levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities, rose to 392 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere in Svalbard in December.... 392? That seems awfully…
Well, that headline's a little unfair. I wrote it to lure in those who jump on every opportunity to prove that climatologists are frauds. What I really mean to say is: "Where the most recent assessment by the IPCC has been superceded by more recent findings. It's all in a new report, The Copenhagen…
Just about everyone assumes that there's at least 200 years worth of coal left in the ground. This makes fears about greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming all the more acute, coal being the most carbon-intensive of the fossil-fuels. But what if popular estimates of coal reserves are no…
There is almost no chance the Bali round of negotiations, which get underway this week, will actually accomplish anything of consequence. Mostly because the United States has no stomach for mandatory greenhouse gas emission caps, but also because too many people still can't get their minds around…

How do we get data for the absorption of CO2 by the Oceans? Seems like a difficult thing to ascertain.

We knew all along that CO2 figure were bad, only we didn't want to face up to it.

You see, we are addicted to the good life.

And am I not correct in thinking that the 450ppm limit to prevent serious climate change is CO2 equivalent, rather than CO2 alone?

To quote John Crichton: "We're so screwed!"

I have been thinking for a long time that we where boned, not that I know anything about it I am just a pessimist. But really is there any hope, or should we just get used to a warming climate and riseing sea levels.

By The Backpacker (not verified) on 26 Sep 2008 #permalink

A warming climate and rising sea levels aren't the half of it. Shorter-run concerns related to water supply, such as shifting/expanding/intensifying drought zones and the geopolitical fallout from the loss of a year-round water supply for a billion+ people due to the disappearance of the Tibet-region glaciers, will soon become a major distraction.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 27 Sep 2008 #permalink