Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Marginal Contribution Matters

[donsutherland1]

On a blog post this morning, Joe Bastardi cited a Department of Energy report mentioned by another blogger, and declared:

By the way, anyone look at this... the actual data as to how little humans contribute to the co2 total http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/greenhouse.png DOE report

FWIW, the relevant DOE report can be found at: http://www.eia.gov/F...ment/057304.pdf (Table 3 is on p.6/p.26 of the .pdf file).

If one looks at the table, one finds that the human component of total emissions for three greenhouse gases during the 1990s was:

Carbon Dioxide: 2.9%

Methane: 60.0%

Nitrous Oxide: 42.1%

However, that's not the end of the story for the discussion of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. More importantly, citing the small human share of emissions is the wrong way to analyze the issue. Marginal analysis is the correct way to analyze the problem.What matters is actually the marginal contribution being made by human activities, because it's that contribution that created an imbalance between annual emissions and annual absorption of CO₂ leading to a rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂.

Looking further at the table, one finds that if humans were emitting no CO₂, annual CO₂ emissions would not have exceeded annual absorption. Instead, the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ increased by an average of 11,700 million metric tons per year during the 1990s. Were human emissions about 51% less per year than what they were, there would still have been a balance between annual emissions and absorption. The reality is that human activities have made the marginal difference in tipping a balanced natural emissions-absorption situation into the unbalanced one that has led to a steady increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂.

The human role for other two greenhouse gases listed in the table was even larger. Human activities were responsible for 60% of the methane emissions. A less than 7% reduction in the human contribution of methane would have resulted in a balance between emissions and absorption. Human activities also accounted for a 42% of total nitrous oxide emissions. As absorption was much closer to natural emissions in the case of N₂O, an approximately 55% reduction in the human contribution would have been needed to achieve balance.

Finally, it should be noted that the IPCC never said that humans are responsible for the majority of CO₂ emissions. Instead, the IPCC declared:

• Carbon dioxide has increased from fossil fuel use in transportation, building heating and cooling and the manufacture of cement and other goods. Deforestation releases CO₂ and reduces its uptake by plants. Carbon dioxide is also released in natural processes such as the decay of plant matter.
  
• Methane has increased as a result of human activities related to agriculture, natural gas distribution and landfills. Methane is also released from natural processes that occur, for example, in wetlands. Methane concentrations are not currently increasing in the atmosphere because growth rates decreased over the last two decades.
  
• Nitrous oxide is also emitted by human activities such as fertilizer use and fossil fuel burning. Natural processes in soils and the oceans also release N₂O.
  

Finally, highlighting the role of the marginal change in CO₂ emissions on account of human activities, the IPCC added:

The increases in global atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution are mainly due to CO₂ emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, gas flaring and cement production. Other sources include emissions due to land use changes such as deforestation (Houghton, 2003) and biomass burning (Andreae and Merlet, 2001; van der Werf, 2004).

In the end, it's the human contribution that has led to the imbalance between annual CO₂ emissions and annual absorption. That humans currently account for only a small share of CO₂ emissions does not matter. The human contribution created the imbalance and that imbalance has led to a persistent increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂. In turn, the rising atmospheric concentration of CO₂ has increased the radiative forcing related to CO₂.

[WeatherRusty]

It shouldn't be so difficult for someone of JB's intellect to grasp this concept of marginal difference to be the relevant factor over simple quantitative contribution. He is not alone however, his misinformed opinion has been a long standing skeptic argument which never seems to stop popping up. I wonder why?

[donsutherland1]

It shouldn't be so difficult for someone of JB's intellect to grasp this concept of marginal difference to be the relevant factor over simple quantitative contribution. He is not alone however, his misinformed opinion has been a long standing skeptic argument which never seems to stop popping up. I wonder why?

IMO, such arguments are a rationalization for continuing business as usual. Hence, even if the contrarian climate position proves wrong--and so far it has--the argument can be that human activities have little responsibility and therefore the status quo can be maintained. Of course, one can probably make stronger arguments for maintaining business as usual, but in the long-run, the status quo isn't sustainable anyway. Delaying efforts to begin a transition away from the status quo will only make the transition shorter, more costly, and more disruptive in the future. Time has value and early action (investment/R&D, conservation, incentives, etc.) can lead to a less difficult and less costly transition and greater long-term flexibility.

Early action, of course, is not the same thing as calling for central planning, "one world government," radical rejection of economic growth, downgrading of living standards, etc., as some taking the contrarian position on climate try to claim. Much of the shift can actually be carried out through the framework of markets and nation-state cooperation/coordination that preserves state sovereignty. Efforts to combat the acid rain problem during the 1990s provide a reasonable case.

[skierinvermont]

JB is either stupid or is deliberately manipulating the truth.

[skierinvermont]

IMO, such arguments are a rationalization for continuing business as usual. Hence, even if the contrarian climate position proves wrong--and so far it has--the argument can be that human activities have little responsibility and therefore the status quo can be maintained. Of course, one can probably make stronger arguments for maintaining business as usual, but in the long-run, the status quo isn't sustainable anyway. Delaying efforts to begin a transition away from the status quo will only make the transition shorter, more costly, and more disruptive in the future. Time has value and early action (investment/R&D, conservation, incentives, etc.) can lead to a less difficult and less costly transition and greater long-term flexibility.

Early action, of course, is not the same thing as calling for central planning, "one world government," radical rejection of economic growth, downgrading of living standards, etc., as some taking the contrarian position on climate try to claim. Much of the shift can actually be carried out through the framework of markets and nation-state cooperation/coordination that preserves state sovereignty. Efforts to combat the acid rain problem during the 1990s provide a reasonable case.

Excellent thoughts Don. A very balanced a feasible approach.

[Jonger]

Has anyone else noticed that gasoline consumption in the United States has PLUMMETED since 2007?

I had a better chart yesterday that shows around 1980 levels and falling. The US governmental group chalked it up to CAFE standards and the economy being a distant 2nd based on miles driven not falling.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Real question here.

Why cant the govt raise taxes on the wealthiest earners say a few percent. And say take 1-2% of the military budget and create an energy infrastructure division using the military and develop and install govt funded innovative technologies like solar and wind energy.

why can I picture windmills and solar panels all over.

To expensive?, we can't contract American companies to the equipment for the military to install and run.

its hard to believe rubes who say it will ruin the economy yet when a bomb goes off and bullets fly that cash is gone.

[Jonger]

Real question here.

Why cant the govt raise taxes on the wealthiest earners say a few percent. And say take 1-2% of the military budget and create an energy infrastructure division using the military and develop and install govt funded innovative technologies like solar and wind energy.

why can I picture windmills and solar panels all over.

To expensive?, we can't contract American companies to the equipment for the military to install and run.

its hard to believe rubes who say it will ruin the economy yet when a bomb goes off and bullets fly that cash is gone.

It's a start, but the majority if the earths energy is in the oceans... At least accessible energy. We need to focus more on harvesting that from currents.

[dabize]

Real question here.

Why cant the govt raise taxes on the wealthiest earners say a few percent. And say take 1-2% of the military budget and create an energy infrastructure division using the military and develop and install govt funded innovative technologies like solar and wind energy.

why can I picture windmills and solar panels all over.

To expensive?, we can't contract American companies to the equipment for the military to install and run.

its hard to believe rubes who say it will ruin the economy yet when a bomb goes off and bullets fly that cash is gone.

Stop making sense, you Commie!

More seriously, the simplest approach would be to use some of that DOD money directly to address the need for counteracting AGW - as a national security issue.

They have felt that AGW consequences will become a major national security hazard for a long time (at least since 2003) at DOD, and they're right. Wish i could find the link, but I'm at work.

[TerryM]

Stop making sense, you Commie!

More seriously, the simplest approach would be to use some of that DOD money directly to address the need for counteracting AGW - as a national security issue.

They have felt that AGW consequences will become a major national security hazard for a long time (at least since 2003) at DOD, and they're right. Wish i could find the link, but I'm at work.

There is even historical precedent - think of the Interstate Highway system.

[FPizz]

Real question here.

Why cant the govt raise taxes on the wealthiest earners say a few percent. And say take 1-2% of the military budget and create an energy infrastructure division using the military and develop and install govt funded innovative technologies like solar and wind energy.

why can I picture windmills and solar panels all over.

To expensive?, we can't contract American companies to the equipment for the military to install and run.

its hard to believe rubes who say it will ruin the economy yet when a bomb goes off and bullets fly that cash is gone.

Global warming is so low on the list of concerns to the vast majority. That would be a good way to not get re-elected.

[Jonger]

Global warming is so low on the list of concerns to the vast majority. That would be a good way to not get re-elected.

This forum and Jeff Masters blog are probably the only 2 places I ever hear about global warming. We are looking at 1.5 degrees over 100 years, not exactly scorching the planet. I think the raw cost of fossil fuels are driving the market toward green technology. Until gas hit $2.50 a gallon, NOTHING was going to change. Money is responsible for gasoline usage plummeting, not concern over 1.5 degrees.`

[WeatherRusty]

This forum and Jeff Masters blog are probably the only 2 places I ever hear about global warming. We are looking at 1.5 degrees over 100 years, not exactly scorching the planet. I think the raw cost of fossil fuels are driving the market toward green technology. Until gas hit $2.50 a gallon, NOTHING was going to change. Money is responsible for gasoline usage plummeting, not concern over 1.5 degrees.`

What? Isn't there a vast multinational, media driven push to ram AGW down our throats? It's supposed to be a socialist plot geared toward taking control of our lives. Strike fear of climate change into the hearts of the public. A vast propaganda machine. That's what I hear all the time from the skeptic community....including the unanimous voice of the Republican Party.

[aslkahuna]

If you read Locoako's thread in PR you will find that there is no unamnity among Republicans and conservatives on this issue. One would need to ask one's self as to who In-accuweather's biggest clients are to explain Bastardi-anyone familiar with the atmosphere knows damn well that small changes can have big consequences down the line.

Steve

[Jonger]

What? Isn't there a vast multinational, media driven push to ram AGW down our throats? It's supposed to be a socialist plot geared toward taking control of our lives. Strike fear of climate change into the hearts of the public. A vast propaganda machine. That's what I hear all the time from the skeptic community....including the unanimous voice of the Republican Party.

There are legitimate groups of people truly concerned with climate change and another set devoted to using the threat of climate change as a consequence of free market capitalism. The later group does damage to the first. Climate change should not be political issue, but it obviously is one of the biggest ones we have today.

[WeatherRusty]

If you read Locoako's thread in PR you will find that there is no unamnity among Republicans and conservatives on this issue. One would need to ask one's self as to who In-accuweather's biggest clients are to explain Bastardi-anyone familiar with the atmosphere knows damn well that small changes can have big consequences down the line.

Steve

The party line for the Republican Party is to deny climate change. They even voted on the issue last year in congress and were unanimous as a party in their disbelief in global warming. Ask Rick Santorum what he thinks. I believe Romney was on the side of science before he wasn't.

I'm not implying the Republican John Q Public follows along lock step, but their hierarchy sure does.

[WeatherRusty]

There are legitimate groups of people truly concerned with climate change and another set devoted to using the threat of climate change as a consequence of free market capitalism. The later group does damage to the first. Climate change should not be political issue, but it obviously is one of the biggest ones we have today.

It is a consequence of free market capitalism, and I love free market capitalism. It has enabled me to be a millionaire. I sit at home typing on a computer for fun because of how I was able to profit from the system.

That doesn't mean it's perfect without warts. Left to itself, it has little regard for the environment it exploits.

[Jonger]

It is a consequence of free market capitalism, and I love free market capitalism. It has enabled me to be a millionaire. I sit at home typing on a computer for fun because of how I was able to profit from the system.

That doesn't mean it's perfect without warts. Left to itself, it has little regard for the environment it exploits.

Fossil fuels have directly or indirectly raised life expectancy from the late 40's to approximately 80 years of age. The entire structure of our society got where it is based on mobility. It's time to start using that bridging resourse to move into sustainable. Conversion will only move as fast as economics allow, beyond that it is a pipe dream.

[LithiaWx]

The party line for the Republican Party is to deny climate change. They even voted on the issue last year in congress and were unanimous as a party in their disbelief in global warming. Ask Rick Santorum what he thinks. I believe Romney was on the side of science before he wasn't.

I'm not implying the Republican John Q Public follows along lock step, but their hierarchy sure does.

It's just not true Rusty. You should go read the thread. There may be a majority of Republicans who don't believe that global warming is catastrophic and even a small number who outright deny the existence. Don't kid yourself either, there are lefties who don't buy the catastrophe argument either.

[WeatherRusty]

If you read Locoako's thread in PR you will find that there is no unamnity among Republicans and conservatives on this issue. One would need to ask one's self as to who In-accuweather's biggest clients are to explain Bastardi-anyone familiar with the atmosphere knows damn well that small changes can have big consequences down the line.

Steve

Do mean this one: Here

That's one great read based on the thoughts of one moderate Republican met who gets it.

In that article however is mentioned John McCain, who during the 2008 campaign was on board with the scientific consensus of climate change. He has since changed his tune to be in line with the Party.

[The_Global_Warmer]

To deny AGW is to deny reality. I just do not understand how anyone can actually look at the papers, data, real time indices. We have hundreds of real time trackers on it proving it. We have satellites proving GHG warming, we can see the feedback's clear as day. It's complete blind and total ignorance on the part of anyone who actively engages in Climatology in anyway. For the average person, it's not as big of a breech of reality because they do not actively seek any real data and still deny it. Which is pretty much insane in some way.

What I find the most utterly disturbing is how folks who deny it outright can not put the reason and logic together with the data we have now. It's worth a study or ten to see how people can see the graphs and papers and still truly believe it's not happening as if they see something not there. Or just don't see whats there, as if the info was processed and incorrectly interpreted.

It's also amazing how the republican politicians can get so many people on board with them, when they talk so much BS on science. It will be interesting to see how the republican presidential candidate handles AGW in the debates, it's not one of Obama's strong areas at all, with the hypocrisy politics.

[WeatherRusty]

Fossil fuels have directly or indirectly raised life expectancy from the late 40's to approximately 80 years of age. The entire structure of our society got where it is based on mobility. It's time to start using that bridging resourse to move into sustainable. Conversion will only move as fast as economics allow, beyond that it is a pipe dream.

Don't misunderstand my position. From all indications there will be no functionally effective, multinational agreement to radically and precipitously ratchet down carbon emissions any time soon. Anything less than that just won't do.

So we will be at the mercy of how rapidly the free market and government controlled economies can produce, export and scale up clean, renewables to global usage, Anything less than something like 80% of global emission at the 1990 level will not suffice. The reason for that is CO2 concentration/rate of accumulation is already well past the point where at least 2C of warming will occur relative to pre-industrial times when CO2 hadn't exceeded 280ppm. It is now over 390ppm and rising at a rate of 2ppm per annum.

It's been at least 3 million years since CO2 levels exceeded 400ppm and temperature was as warm as we stand to soon experience. Atmospheric CO2 of over 400ppm coincided with global temps 4-6C warmer than today going back 20 million years ago. Since the mid Cretaceous Period about 100 million years ago when CO2 hovered around 600ppm and global temps were as much as 10C warmer than today, CO2 has experienced a general decline in the atmosphere to reside generally between 180ppm and 280ppm over the past 3 million years of northern hemisphere periodic glaciation.

Natural geologic process regulate the amount of CO2 resident in the atmosphere on multi-million year time frames. Once in the atmosphere CO2 level acts to regulate surface temperature on Earth much the same way as a thermostat does. How it finds itself into the atmosphere in the first place is dependent on the ambient temperate and how this affects the chemistry of rock weathering and CO2 concentration within the oceans. Warmer seas hold less CO2 in solution, so the warmer it becomes due to a decreased rate of rock weathering, the less capable the oceans are of scrubbing that CO2 out of the atmosphere. The added CO2 then acts to enhance the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric CO2 acts therefore as both a feedback to warming and also a cause of warming. This is a classic positive feeback loop.

Now mankind comes along and becomes a source for introducing CO2 to the atmosphere at a much greater rate than what occurs by the process of natural rock weathering. Natural CO2 sinks were in balance with natural sources of CO2 given overall conditions. Humans are now responsible for about 3% of the total CO2 engaged in the natural carbon cycle as the Earth system literally inhales and exhales CO2. That 3% is the marginal difference which has disrupted the natural balance. The Earth, given current geological conditions, is capable of inhaling only so much, which used to be close to equilibrium with how much it was exhaling. That extra 3% contributed by man's activities is building in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere and it will remain there for 100's to 1,000's of years, only slowly falling to natural background levels as natural process eventually catch up with the imbalance. The higher that CO2 concentration becomes in parts per million, the longer will be required to reestablish balance over coming decades and centuries.

That basically in a nutshell is what has and is going on according to scientific investigation.

[Jonger]

To deny AGW is to deny reality. I just do not understand how anyone can actually look at the papers, data, real time indices. We have hundreds of real time trackers on it proving it. We have satellites proving GHG warming, we can see the feedback's clear as day. It's complete blind and total ignorance on the part of anyone who actively engages in Climatology in anyway. For the average person, it's not as big of a breech of reality because they do not actively seek any real data and still deny it. Which is pretty much insane in some way.

What I find the most utterly disturbing is how folks who deny it outright can not put the reason and logic together with the data we have now. It's worth a study or ten to see how people can see the graphs and papers and still truly believe it's not happening as if they see something not there. Or just don't see whats there, as if the info was processed and incorrectly interpreted.

It's also amazing how the republican politicians can get so many people on board with them, when they talk so much BS on science. It will be interesting to see how the republican presidential candidate handles AGW in the debates, it's not one of Obama's strong areas at all, with the hypocrisy politics.

There are almost no outward signs of global warming in the mid latitudes by the average person. The usual departures average less then 2 degrees in most mid latitude locations. It will probably take another 50-100 years to show outward signs of change if co2 levels proceed like worst case prognosticators indicate. Face it, you guys are AGW hobbyists and you look for worst case situations like a snow weenie wishcasts maximum snowfall.

If we reach a point where an international agreement doesn't transpire, it will be at the point to where we will probably have advanced far enough to figure out a way to engineer out the CO2. Economics are currently cutting down on CO2 in this country, but soon China and India will be pressured to get on board if they want to participate in a sustainable society.

[WeatherRusty]

There are almost no outward signs of global warming in the mid latitudes by the average person. The usual departures average less then 2 degrees in most mid latitude locations. It will probably take another 50-100 years to show outward signs of change if co2 levels proceed like worst case prognosticators indicate. Face it, you guys are AGW hobbyists and you look for worst case situations like a snow weenie wishcasts maximum snowfall.

If we reach a point where an international agreement doesn't transpire, it will be at the point to where we will probably have advanced far enough to figure out a way to engineer out the CO2. Economics are currently cutting down on CO2 in this country, but soon China and India will be pressured to get on board if they want to participate in a sustainable society.

Another point to be made is that even if all emissions were halted today, global temp would still continue to rise until the TOA imbalance has been eliminated. The current TOA imbalance supports about 0.6C of additional warming.

[aslkahuna]

Another point to be made is that even if all emissions were halted today, global temp would still continue to rise until the TOA imbalance has been eliminated. The current TOA imbalance supports about 0.6C of additional warming.

That's why Kyoto was doomed to fail because it only cut emissions to the 1990 levels which,while lower than today's, was still above the natural emissions plus China and India were excluded (and the US did not ratify).

Steve

[The_Global_Warmer]

That's why Kyoto was doomed to fail because it only cut emissions to the 1990 levels which,while lower than today's, was still above the natural emissions plus China and India were excluded (and the US did not ratify).

Steve

Week of March 18, 2012: 394.79 ppm

Weekly value from 1 year ago: 392.48 ppm

Weekly value from 10 years ago: 374.26 ppm

The peak is in late May and is looking like it will hit around 397.50. 2013 could be the big 400. Unfortunitely we are still increasing the amount of Co2 pumped back into the atmosphere.

[bobbutts]

This forum and Jeff Masters blog are probably the only 2 places I ever hear about global warming. We are looking at 1.5 degrees over 100 years, not exactly scorching the planet. I think the raw cost of fossil fuels are driving the market toward green technology. Until gas hit $2.50 a gallon, NOTHING was going to change. Money is responsible for gasoline usage plummeting, not concern over 1.5 degrees.`

Looking at that it seems to have become volatile, but the noteworthy recent anomaly is how historically low it was just before the turn of the century.

[dabize]

The peak is in late May and is looking like it will hit around 397.50. 2013 could be the big 400. Unfortunitely we are still increasing the amount of Co2 pumped back into the atmosphere.

http://localsteps.org/howbad.html

When you check out the various IPCC scenarios in detail (linked to this page), its all quite sobering.

The amount we will have to do globally just to keep it at 450 ppm by 2100 is depressing, especially given the resistance to reality among people who should know better.

When you consider the likely emissions from developing countries, and the political difficulty THEY will have limiting emissions to a point well below what we are emitting now per capita, you can see that a business as usual scenario (say - A1F) for the West (which will be emulated by China and India (see above) is likely to get us wiped off the planet (or at least well on our way to Venus) in 200 years.

I won't be here, but I find it still rather depressing

[aslkahuna]

Even the most dire predicitions don't have us reaching the level of Venus in 200 years. Things will be different to be sure and there will be dislocations but not a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead though that is in the future when the Sun further evolves.

Steve

[dabize]

Even the most dire predicitions don't have us reaching the level of Venus in 200 years. Things will be different to be sure and there will be dislocations but not a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead though that is in the future when the Sun further evolves.

Steve

Didn't say (or didn't mean to say) we'd be all the way there.....as you say, that's dire, as in not at all compatible with life dire.

But we could be as irrevocably committed to it as we would be if the Sun were going nova.....

Once you get past a certain point, all the feedbacks favor further warming, and the Sun has been getting brighter, not dimmer in the 50 million years since the PETM.