sjn wrote:Any ideas how they actually measure CO2 emissions ? Do they just subtract known direct non-anthrogenic sources from the global total from satellite sensors? Or is it the output from a model of industrial/economic consumption patterns and efficiency gains? I ask because actual atmospheric CO2 has risen at the highest historical rate (accounting for seasonal variation) during the "stall".
dohboi wrote:In principle, it's easy to measure emissions--just measure output of all ff mines and wells.
It is a fairly safe assumption that nearly all of that gets burned, most within a few months of it coming out of the ground.
The problem with dis's statement that you can measure emissions by concentrations is that the two graphs look quite different, in fact. CO2 concentrations continue to rise at an increasing rate, even as there are claims, such as the graph presented, being made that emissions have not increased markedly over the last couple years.
pstarr wrote:So GW has caused the upcoming final recession?
If you look at trends in power plant construction you would see why the link between economic growth and co2 emissions is weakening. In decades past, most of our new power plants were powered by fossil fuels. Today, most new power plants are powered by non co2 emitters like renewables, nuclear, etc.dissident wrote:People always appeal to efficiency to fob off CO2 as a metric of the economy. It reminds me of fusion power, it is always a couple of decades away. So were the 1990s so technologically backward compared to the present? How about most of the 2000s when the CO2 emissions were ramping up from year to year? CO2 emissions grow together with the GDP for obvious reasons. The modern GDP paradigm requires annual growth and no steady state economics regime is being advocated or established.
10 YEARS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRESSIn 2004 the global market share of new renewable-based power plants was only 8%. By 2013 this market share increased to 40% including large hydro.
Renewables 2016 Global Status Reportkublikhan wrote:Renewable energy highlights 2015:
* Renewable energy investments hit a new record in 2015: $286 billion(excludes large hydro). This was more than double coal & natural gas investments in new capacity for 2015 of $130 billion.
* For the first time in history, total investment in renewable power and fuels in developing countries in 2015 exceeded that in developed economies.
* The world now adds more renewable power capacity annually than it adds (net) capacity from all fossil fuels combined.
* An estimated 147 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity was added in 2015, the largest annual increase ever.
* Wind power was the leading source of new power generating capacity in Europe and the United States in 2015, and the second largest in China.
You are highlighting the growth(or lack thereof) of co2 emissions. Which means you need to look at the growth(or lack there of) of the emission sources. Not the total amount. IE, look at what NEW capacity is being added. Is the new capacity largely fossil fuel based or non fossil fuel based? Look at China for example:dissident wrote:The graph I posted (thanks to the discussion on one of the climate threads) shows that there was a large increase of GDP between the mid 1990s until the last three years. This is globalization in action and the growth of consumer economies in China, India, and elsewhere. The current stall cannot be attributed to magical new technologies. The scale is all wrong. Solar and wind power are less than 2% of the global energy production. How can such a small number, which was even smaller in 2000, account for the shape of the CO2 emissions curve? It can't.
Statistical Communiqué of the People's Republic of China on the 2014 National Economic and Social Developmentkublikhan wrote:China electricity changes 2013-2014 (100 million kWh)
2173 total electricity increase
1444 hydro
646 other(wind, solar, etc.)
210 nuclear
-127 thermal(coal/natural gas)
sjn wrote:pstarr wrote:So GW has caused the upcoming final recession?
Joking? The point is CO2 emissions are a proxy for economic activity.
Dis, I think the point Dohboi is making it that the rate of change of CO2 concentration has increased according to the Keeling Curve, whilst emissions have reportedly stalled.
sjn, I am aware renewables generate co2 during construction. However the scale is very different compared to fossil fuels. Renewables add a trickle of co2 emissions compared to fossil fuel sources. And as for methane, that was not in the numbers dissident was discussing. Because of it's methane emissions, hydro in tropical regions may very well contribute more to global warming than coal. However the question was does stalled co2 growth = stalled economic growth. Given the growth of alts combined with the info in the image below, it becomes apparent why the co2/economic link is weakening.sjn wrote:Kub, it's myth that alternatives to fossil fuels do not generate greenhouse gases. Hydro, for example has high CO2 emissions during construction (concrete and heavy equipment), and in most regions very high lifetime CH4 emissions. Nuclear has high emissions during construction, decommissioning and refinement. Solar through the manufacturing process. Wind - manufacture maintenance and especially concrete again.
pstarr wrote: Plant, have you turned your back on your beloved Ayn Rand?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests