Another year another set of CO2 figures
Posted: 20 Feb 2018, 02:35
But not those you will read in the press.
We've reached the point in the year where we get the preliminary 2017 CO2 average rise figures. They will be revised and probably down. However it tells a story. It is not that easy to interpret the story because there are so many factors. But only really large factors actually show up.
For instance.
Mt St Helens and El Chicon volcanic eruptions in the early 80's.
The truly massive Mt Pinatubo eruption in the early 90's.
These have a dampening effect on CO2 growth and Mt Pinatubo had a huge impact for 2 years.
Then there are the El Nino years. These have a positive effect on CO2 Growth.
In the 80's, towards the end of the decade, there was a truly massive El Nino
In the 90's, again, there was a large El Nino in 97-98, I'm sure many will remember that
In 2015-16, again, there was a huge El Nino.
To do a like for like I have only taken the first 8 years of each decade. This means that the impact of 98 and 88 are not yet felt. This will show in following 2 years figures, however 89 and 99 showed significant falls which impact the average.
So let us see how really good we are at our CO2 reductions. All those accords, treaties, all those taxes on fuel and everything else. Figures are in ppm (parts per million), CO2 rise since the previous year...
60 - 67 0.74
70 - 77 1.20
80 - 87 1.54
90 - 97 1.31
00 - 07 1.95
10 - 17 2.35
The really worrying figure is 00 - 07. There were no Volcano's, there were no huge Nino's. Just average. 60 - 67 to 00 - 07 is the trend the climate scientists are trying to get us to focus on. In short, we can't continue to do this without consequences.
At this rate, one more decade and we'll be growing, on average, CO2, nearly four times as fast as we were in the 60's. This is a decadal average, which means most of the year to year variations are ironed out. This is now 6 decades of records. Even the most pessimistic scientists call this a trend.
How about that in picture form. Perhaps we should entitle it Abject Failure.
We've reached the point in the year where we get the preliminary 2017 CO2 average rise figures. They will be revised and probably down. However it tells a story. It is not that easy to interpret the story because there are so many factors. But only really large factors actually show up.
For instance.
Mt St Helens and El Chicon volcanic eruptions in the early 80's.
The truly massive Mt Pinatubo eruption in the early 90's.
These have a dampening effect on CO2 growth and Mt Pinatubo had a huge impact for 2 years.
Then there are the El Nino years. These have a positive effect on CO2 Growth.
In the 80's, towards the end of the decade, there was a truly massive El Nino
In the 90's, again, there was a large El Nino in 97-98, I'm sure many will remember that
In 2015-16, again, there was a huge El Nino.
To do a like for like I have only taken the first 8 years of each decade. This means that the impact of 98 and 88 are not yet felt. This will show in following 2 years figures, however 89 and 99 showed significant falls which impact the average.
So let us see how really good we are at our CO2 reductions. All those accords, treaties, all those taxes on fuel and everything else. Figures are in ppm (parts per million), CO2 rise since the previous year...
60 - 67 0.74
70 - 77 1.20
80 - 87 1.54
90 - 97 1.31
00 - 07 1.95
10 - 17 2.35
The really worrying figure is 00 - 07. There were no Volcano's, there were no huge Nino's. Just average. 60 - 67 to 00 - 07 is the trend the climate scientists are trying to get us to focus on. In short, we can't continue to do this without consequences.
At this rate, one more decade and we'll be growing, on average, CO2, nearly four times as fast as we were in the 60's. This is a decadal average, which means most of the year to year variations are ironed out. This is now 6 decades of records. Even the most pessimistic scientists call this a trend.
How about that in picture form. Perhaps we should entitle it Abject Failure.