Quarantines & Lockdowns Do Not Change Global CO2 Levels
The COVID-19, aka Coronavirus pandemic, is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as businesses close, airlines cancel flights, energy production is reduced, and people shelter in their homes and drive less.
Climate activists expected this economic downtown to translate to less energy usage, and therefore less CO2 emissions globally.
While that has indeed happened, with China seeing a 40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} emissions drop, and an expected 11{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. this year, it didn’t translate into the proof they were seeking.
What scientists are looking for is any evidence of a decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn.
University of Alabama climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer used a simple method1 for removing the large seasonal CO2 cycle2, due to plant photosynthesis increases/decreases with seasons, from the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina events, which change the rate of ocean outgassing of CO2.
The result: no obvious downtown in global CO2 levels has been observed 3,4.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the latest CO2 data show no downtrend, but instead just a ripple, that is not unlike other ripples in the graph when there was no crisis and resulting economic downturn.
Figure 1: Using a simple method1 for removing the large seasonal cycle from the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina events, no obvious downtown in global CO2 levels has been observed4. Analysis by Dr. Roy Spencer.
The newspaper USA Today did a fact check on this issue and found the same result.
NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratories also studied the issue5 and concluded:
“That drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the “missing” emissions do not stand out.”
Clearly, there is no indication that the forced reductions have had any effect on global CO2 levels, suggesting that natural forces, such as ocean outgassing of CO2 overwhelm man-made contributions.
This further suggests that the calls from climate alarmists to reduce fossil fuel use, automobile use, airline travel, beef consumption, and an entire litany of complaints they make about modern life-enhancing energy use applications will have little or no effect if implemented as they demand.
Further reading:
- Is the COVID-19 Economic Downturn Affecting Atmospheric CO2? Mauna Loa Data Say, Not Yet by Dr. Roy Spencer March 22, 2020. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-economic-downturn-affecting-atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-data-say-not-yet/
- Seasonal Changes in Carbon Dioxide NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio May 4, 2017. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4565
- March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn Dr. Roy Spencer April 7, 2020. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/
- Why the Current Economic Slowdown Won’t Show Up in the Atmospheric CO2 Record by Dr. Roy Spencer May 15, 2020. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/
- Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19? NOAA Earth System Research Laboratories May 2020. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html
Read more at Climate At A Glance
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
I would have been surprised if any reduction did show up. Natural CO2 emissions are about 24 times as much as human emissions. If hmuan emissions were reduced to zero you’d barely see any difference.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Do you, or does anyone, have a sound link to the source and sink fluxes of CO2 from warm and cold parts of the ocean?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
No I’m sorry I don’t.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
You might find what you are looking for here:
https://bosmin.com//SeaChange.pdf
Reply
Lauchlan Duff
| #
This whole story of not seeing any Muana-Loa CO2 reductions despite up to 17% fossil fuel CO2 reductions during April is compatible with the whole farcical carbon budget (eg the official 2019 Carbon budget -Friedlingstein et al 2019). Farcical because they use a conversion factor of 2.124 to convert Gt Carbon to ppm CO2. Clearly the conversion factor depends on what atmospheric volumes they are referring to. They dont say this but its obvious. My calculations show that the 2.124 conversion factor applies (and semi validates the C budget sources and sinks) when the atmospheric volume is only calculated to 8.4 km height. If one applies both the tropospheric and stratospheric volumes (to a height of 48 km), then its very clear that fossil fuel emissions only comprise 5-6 ppm out of the current 412 ppm. So the gap is not accounted for using the CBudget calculated sources and sinks apart from FFs. Reason- as the ocean warms, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This is additional to all the other biological sources of CO2. So, in the current warming environment the oceans are a net source rather than net sink. So a 17% reduction of 5-6 ppm / 6 (ie only 2 months out of 12 reduction) equates to unmeasurable influence on ML CO2 as of April 2020.
Reply
Robert Beattty
| #
Good points Lauchlan,
The common perception is that the sea is a static entity and does not change significantly ever. In reality, the sea is the closest contact we have with Earth’s core, and slight changes in the core’s heat flux affects CO2 levels.
We are experiencing a slight geological change which started around 1850.
Reply