NOAA - Net Heating Effect Of GHGs Up 1.5% Globally In Just One Year From 2012 To 2013

[hatrack]

The combined heating effect of human-emitted greenhouse gases increased 1.5 percent between 2012 and 2013, according to an index maintained by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder.

The 1.5 percent increase, announced Friday, brings the total increase in such gases added to the atmosphere to 34 percent since 1990. The data is tracked through NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, maintained by the Global Monitoring Division of the Boulder-based Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA.

The latest data on the AGGI was released Friday by Jim Butler, director of the Global Monitoring Division, in Vienna where he is participating at the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union.

"The significance is that it's an annual reminder that the warming influence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, and it can take a long time to recover from what we're seeing, should we choose to go that direction," Butler said in a phone interview.

Reversing the continuing trend — the last decade has seen steady increases of 1.4 to 1.5 percent — won't be easy. The Kyoto Protocol, which the United States has declined to ratify, set as a goal reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.

EDIT

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_25687773/boulder-scientists-planet-sees-another-1-5-boost

[phantom power]

1. bad

[Benton D Struckcheon]

2. Not as bad as it used to be

Increases have been running below 2% pretty regularly since 1990, when the Montreal Protocol on CFC's went into effect. We bought a lot of time with that success. 1.5% is right in line with the average since then.
Data here (scroll down to see the table with the history: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html )
It's not good, but it doesn't indicate any deterioration either. Just the same trend, somewhat improved from earlier, for the last 25 years. There are some worrying trends in there for methane and the minor CFC's.

[NickB79]

3. 1.5% annually for 24 years,despite all the renewables we've installed

It means that all the renewables we've added to this point only worked to take the edge off our emissions.

If we want any chance at all of preventing a global catastrophe in our lifetimes, simply holding increases to 1.5% annually is pathetically insufficient.

As the article stated:

Reversing the continuing trend — the last decade has seen steady increases of 1.4 to 1.5 percent — won't be easy. The Kyoto Protocol, which the United States has declined to ratify, set as a goal reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.

We're already so far beyond any semblance of a safe CO2 level in the atmosphere that we basically have to not only stop virtually all CO2 emissions in the next 15 years, but find ways to actively sequester CO2 as well. All the while supporting a global economy of 8-9 billion people.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

4. It's both worse and better

1. In terms of CO2 equivalent, when you include all of the gases, we're at 479 already. That's towards the right hand side of the table in the link I cited.
2. As I noted, renewables only very recently began to take off. As of now, new generating facilities in the US and Europe are almost all renewables. Solar is growing so fast in the US that last year (I ran the figures on a spreadsheet) the admittedly tiny share solar had peaked in October rather than in the summer, and the only decent explanation for that is that so much solar was going online that the incremental additions of the new capacity overwhelmed what should have been a much larger decrease than what actually occurred in the power generated. That means we'll see a big bump this year as we get to the sunny part of the year just from what was installed last year.
3. Hydro is not performing well because of the drought half the country is going through, so this year's increases in wind and solar will probably wind up not helping in increasing the total share of renewables because they'll have to make up for the decline in hydro generation.

But in a few years the additions to wind and solar capacity will be too large to not make a difference. There will be a very bad time though, when CO2 will still be rising even as more of these come online. The real dent in fossil fuel usage is still ten years away, but once their share starts to decline, it will be much faster than most people are thinking. The decline in the price of solar is very steep, and is a function of its increasing use. It's in a nice virtuous circle where as more gets installed the price declines accelerate. Getting the cost down is what was needed, and that's happened. Getting enough installed to make fossil fuels uneconomical is the next goal, and I think we'll be a lot closer to that in a decade than most people are anticipating. I think ALEC realizes this, which is why you see them suddenly very active in trying to slow it down.

[GliderGuider]

5. One other point to consider:

A steady percentage increase of a quantity means an accelerating absolute increase.

Globally, renewable power still appears to be largely an addition to fossil power, not a replacement. This may change in the future, but we're running out of time.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. For the US and Europe, at least, that last part is not true.

What is true is that as the economy recovers, people use their cars more, so total energy usage is increasing. But for the sector that the IPCC correctly focuses on for the fact it's both easier and you get more bang because you can retire the coal plants - electricity - renewables haven't lead to an increase in electric usage. Electricity usage has been gently declining, actually, because of increased efficiency in household appliances combined with better insulated houses. So there you have a double effect: the share of renewables has been increasing at the same time as total electric power generated has actually declined some. This too is probably why ALEC is getting involved all of a sudden.

[GliderGuider]

7. US and EU are not the world.

CO2 is a global problem. Globally, neither CO2 production or electricity use is declining. Globally, electricity use is increasing by an average of 3.3% pa and CO2 by 2.6% pa over the period 2000-2012.

While it's nice that the EU and the USA can pat themselves on the back, the world situation is not changing.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

8. Obviously, it has to change in the advanced part of the world first.

For the obvious reason that they have the money to try things out, and the technology to make it happen. It ain't happenin' first in rural India or something.
What you're missing is that as the price of solar declines because of economies of scale and increased efficiencies garnered from moving along the learning curve on how to do it, it becomes affordable and practical for the rest of the world. The IPCC's goal is 50% renewable in electric generation by 2050. We're at 23% now. All you need is a doubling and a little bit. If you get the price down to where it becomes practical for all of the industrialized heavy users of power to switch over, you can get to that goal with no problem at all.

[GliderGuider]

9. We'll see. nt