Let’s see if you can figure out why this might not be the kind of news that advocates of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis might have wanted:
The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. …
The world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That’s an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries – China, the United States and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.
It is a “monster” increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.
I’m pretty sure that the AGW crowd will use this as a lever to scream for more action on CO2 emissions. The AP report certainly gives vent to the hysterical reaction thus far:
In 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.
However, those estimates were based on models that assumed CO2 drove temperatures higher in proportion to emissions. Temperatures over more than a decade of increasing CO2 emissions show that’s not the case, however:
In fact, as CO2 emissions rose again to meet the demands of recovering economies, temperatures actually dipped. We had our coldest winter in more than a decade last year, and as the chart shows, the average temperature during the last decade remained static against the 1950-80 average. AGW models predicted constant rising temperatures, not 13 years (three not shown in the chart) of plateauing. Even if one makes the claim that accumulation matters more, the hypothesis is that we reached a saturation point for accumulation decades ago, and that’s why the warming in the latter half of the 20th century was driven by CO2 releases. Obviously, that’s not the case.
That’s why one of the Berkeley team told the Daily Mail that while CO2 might still be a factor in global climate, science is now looking at other reasons for the warming over the last century:
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’ …
‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.
They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
Imagine what will happen when people compare this “monster” release to temperatures over the next couple of years. Of course, that will only happen if temperatures increase. If they stay flat, or even decline, they’ll be doing their best to hide this monster.