Yes, sinks do affect the atmospheric total and can skew conclusions if you only look at a single year. Also, some of the deforestation is related to economic activity. The sink numbers are also a lot more uncertain than those for fossil fuel emissions and tend to average out over time. The oceanic sink numbers don't change much at all. Look at 2000-2002 where the fossil emissions hardly changed at all and then shot up in the coming years (Column H of your spreadsheet). Those increases are enough to affect atmospheric CO2 levels. Also, CDIAC's most recent fossil fuel emissions http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems historical estimates show the stalling in emissions during the 3 recessions I mentioned. My conclusion that a business recession won't slow global warming significantly stands as does the conclusion that you can see the impact of recessions on atmospheric CO2 levels unless there is some other event that would obscure it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "COLIN FORREST" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:52 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Fight Climate Change with Depression > Alvia, > > The Mauna Loa record is only from one point on the planet. An intergated > world average is better.....http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ > Global average > > You should look at estimated emissions... http://cait.wri.org/ because > the > atmospheric buildup is a residual of anthropogenic emissions including > deforestation, less what the oceans and land soak up, and natural > variations > in sinks are far larger than the gradual and steady increase in > anthropogenic emissions. > > Look at how much the land sink varies depending on climate, especially El > Nino and volcanic eruptions (figure attached) The land was a sink of 4 GtC > when the world was cooled by Pinatubo, and a source of 0.5 GtC in the El > Nino years of 87 and 98. > > These variations dwarf the slight changes in human emissions, which are > not > more than 0.5GtC per year (column I in attached spreadsheet) > > Regards, Colin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:28 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: Fight Climate Change with Depression > > >> >> A little more analysis of what to expect from the recent market >> "correction" >> with respect to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. >> >> I didn't look at reported or estimated emissions, instead I reviewed the >> Scripps Mauna Loa data for the last 40 years >> http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv during which >> there have been 3 large global recessions: 1973-1975, 1980-1982, >> 2001-2003 >> as well as the one we are in right now. >> >> I took the difference in the January CO2 levels in ppmv for each year >> from >> the previous year. Here are the relevant results: >> >> 1970-1971 1.14 >> 1971-1972 0.60 >> 1972-1973 1.78 >> 1973-1974 0.80 >> 1974-1975 1.05 >> 1975-1976 1.35 >> 1976-1977 1.18 >> 1977-1978 2.04 >> 1978-1979 1.26 >> 1979-1980 1.79 >> 1980-1981 1.22 >> 1981-1982 1.51 >> 1982-1983 0.62 >> 1983-1984 2.33 >> 1984-1985 1.27 >> 1985-1986 1.33 >> 1986-1987 1.72 >> 1987-1988 2.41 >> 1988-1989 2.33 >> 1989-1990 0.90 >> 1990-1991 1.06 >> 1991-1992 1.27 >> 1992-1993 0.71 >> 1993-1994 1.67 >> 1994-1995 1.60 >> 1995-1996 2.08 >> 1996-1997 1.13 >> 1997-1998 2.05 >> 1998-1999 2.92 >> 1999-2000 0.99 >> 2000-2001 1.14 >> 2001-2002 2.16 >> 2002-2003 2.24 >> 2003-2004 2.12 >> 2004-2005 1.57 >> 2005-2006 3.01 >> 2006-2007 1.07 >> 2007-2008 2.62 >> >> While it is true that during the recessions, CO2 increases year-over-year >> declined, sometimes as much as 50%, the increases returned within a year >> or >> so and the 5-years after the recession showed larger CO2 increases than >> the >> 5 years before. It is important to note that business recessions and CO2 >> increases do not track exactly as there are other factors involved in >> both, >> but the increase in the global economy as a whole over the last 40 years >> does correlate with increased use of fossil fuels as well as other >> sources >> of GHGs. >> >> While it would be nice if the present recession were a breather or >> respite >> from CO2 increases, history suggests that it will be too short to make >> any >> real difference and worse still, pent up demand along with continued >> growth >> in the developing nations will rather quickly wipe out any decreases that >> could have slowed global warming. >> >> The most likely impact will be policymakers using this recession as yet >> another excuse not to reduce emissions or follow through with Kyoto such >> as >> it is or its successor. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:50 AM >> Subject: [geo] Re: Fight Climate Change with Depression >> >> >> >> you can see the slowdown in the 80s in the mauna loa record >> >> On Oct 8, 5:29 am, "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I don't think so. Economic activity isn't going to stop. This isn't the >>> 1930's. Yet. People will still be driving, heating their homes and >>> factories will still be operating. If anything, the collapse of the >>> Monopoly Game Ponzi scheme formerly known as Wall Street will hamper >>> efforts to reign in emissions. And that's something else we can't >>> afford. >>> >>> http://news.stv.tv/environment/32969-economic-woes-may-give-planet-a-... >>> >>> Economic woes may give planet a breather >>> NICOSIA (Reuters) - A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet >>> a >>> breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions >>> responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on >>> Tuesday. Atmospheric scientist Paul J Crutzen, who has in the past >>> floated >>> the possibility of blitzing the stratosphere with sulfur particles to >>> cool >>> the earth, said clouds gathering over the world economy could ease the >>> Earth's environmental burden. >>> >>> 07 October 2008 16:28 PM >>> >>> a.. Read 6 times >>> b.. Jump to video >>> >>> By Michele Kambas >>> >>> NICOSIA (Reuters) - A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet >>> a >>> breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions >>> responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on >>> Tuesday. >>> >>> Atmospheric scientist Paul J Crutzen, who has in the past floated the >>> possibility of blitzing the stratosphere with sulfur particles to cool >>> the >>> earth, said clouds gathering over the world economy could ease the >>> earth's >>> environmental burden. >>> >>> Slower economic growth worldwide could help slow growth of carbon >>> dioxide >>> emissions and trigger more careful use of energy resources, though the >>> global economic turmoil may also divert focus from efforts to counter >>> climate change, said Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in >>> Chemistry >>> for his work on the depletion of the ozone layer. >>> >>> "It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in >>> the >>> economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it >>> could be an advantage," Crutzen told Reuters in an interview. >>> >>> "We could have a much slower increase of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere >>> ... people will start saving (on energy use) ... but things may get >>> worse >>> if there is less money available for research and that would be >>> serious." >>> >>> CO2 emissions, released by the burning of fossil fuels in power >>> stations, >>> factories, homes and vehicles, are growing at almost 3.0 percent a year. >>> >>> The U.N. Panel on Climate Change estimates that world temperatures may >>> rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) >>> this century. The Group of Eight industrial nations agreed in July to a >>> goal of halving world emissions by 2050. >>> >>> Crutzen was in Cyprus for a lecture organized by the Cyprus Institute, a >>> research foundation. >>> >>> He caused a stir with the publication of a paper in 2006 suggesting that >>> injecting the common pollutant sulfur into the stratosphere some 10 >>> miles >>> above the earth could snuff out the greenhouse effect. >>> >>> He believes that dispersing 1 million tons of sulfur into the >>> stratosphere >>> each year, either on balloons or in rockets, would deflect sunlight and >>> cool the planet. >>> >>> Scientists observed that world temperatures dropped by 0.5 degrees >>> centigrade on average when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in >>> 1991, spewing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, and Crutzen said the >>> idea originated with a Russian scientist about 30 years ago. >>> >>> "I am not saying we should do it, but it is one of the options if we >>> continue under present conditions. We should study it," he said. "If you >>> look beyond a decade, two decades, and nothing has been done (to counter >>> warming) then we will have a very serious problem on our hands." >>> >>> Sulfur is a component of acid rain, which has harmful effects on plants >>> and fish. >>> >>> "Acid rain is caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from the ground, from >>> the >>> chimneys, and it's 50 million tons per year. The experiment in the >>> stratosphere would be one million tons of sulfur per year. It's >>> negligible," he said. >>> >>> It would be an extreme endeavor, but for extreme circumstances, he said. >>> >>> In a 2007 report, the U.N. climate change panel said such >>> geo-engineering >>> options were largely speculative and unproven, with the risk of unknown >>> side effects. Reliable cost estimates had not been published, it said. >>> >>> "The price is not a major factor... it's peanuts," said Crutzen. "The >>> cost >>> has been estimated by some at 10, 20 million U.S. dollars a year." >>> >>> (Editing by Kevin Liffey) >>> >>> 32969-economic-woes-may-give-planet-a-breather-200.jpg >>> 17KViewDownload >> >> >> > >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
