From the University of East Anglia home of Climatgate and Phil Jones. Fortunately, we already covered this at WUWT graphically as shown below:
This graph and subsequent story shows just how well the Kyoto protocol has succeeded, which is to say, it didn’t. Meanwhile, blabbing climate activists at Doha try to salvage some new agreement as if that will work either.
UEA research shows record high for global carbon emissions
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes – according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
The 2.6 per cent rise projected for 2012 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 58 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol.
This latest analysis by the Global Carbon Project is published today in the journal Nature Climate Change with full data released simultaneously by the journal Earth System Science Data Discussions.
It shows the biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (28 per cent), the United States (16 per cent), the European Union (11 per cent), and India (7 per cent).
Emissions in China and India grew by 9.9 and 7.5 per cent in 2011, while those of the United States and the European Union decreased by 1.8 and 2.8 per cent.
Emissions per person in China of 6.6 tonnes of CO2 were nearly as high as those of the European Union (7.3), but still below the 17.2 tonnes of carbon used in the United States. Emissions in India were lower at 1.8 tonnes of carbon per person.
Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at UEA, led the publication of the data. She said: “These latest figures come amidst climate talks in Doha. But with emissions continuing to grow, it’s as if no-one is listening to the entire scientific community.”
The 2012 rise further opens the gap between real-world emissions and those required to keep global warming below the international target of two degrees.
“I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan,” added Prof Corinne Le Quéré.
The analysis published in Nature Climate Change shows significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep two degrees as a feasible goal.
It shows previous energy transitions in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, and the UK have led to emission reductions as high as 5 per cent each year over decade-long periods, even without climate policy.
Lead author Dr Glen Peters, of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said: “Scaling up similar energy transitions across more countries can kick-start global mitigation with low costs. To deepen and sustain these energy transitions in a broad range of countries requires aggressive policy drivers.”
Co-author Dr Charlie Wilson, of the Tyndall Centre at UEA, added: “Public policies and institutions have a central role to play in supporting the widespread deployment of low carbon and efficient energy-using technologies, and in supporting innovation efforts”.
Emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added 10 per cent to the emissions from burning fossil fuels. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached 391 parts per million (ppm) at the end of 2011.
These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society. These other analyses come from the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Bank, the European Environment Agency, and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The December edition of Nature Climate Change contains three more research papers from Tyndall Centre authors: ‘Equity and state representations in climate negotiations’ by Heike Schroeder of UEA; ‘Changing Social Contracts in Climate Change Adaptation’ with Irene Lorenzoni and Tara Quinn of UEA; and ‘Proportionate adaptation’ by Jim Hall at Oxford University and colleagues from the Tyndall Centres at Southampton University, Cardiff and UEA.
‘The mitigation challenge to stay below two degrees’ by G.P. Peters, R.M. Andrew, T. Boden, J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, G. Marland, M.R. Raupach, C. Wilson is published online by Nature Climate Change. http://bit.ly/Qpt3ub (online from Dec 2, 2012, 1800 GMT).
Full details of the methods and data used are presented in: ‘The Global Carbon Budget 1959’ by C. Le Quéré, R. J. Andres, T. Boden, T. Conway, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, G. Marland, G. P. Peters, G. van der Werf, A. Ahlström, R. M. Andrew, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, S. C. Doney, C. Enright, P. Friedlingstein, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, C. Jourdain, E. Kato, R. Keeling, K. Klein Goldewijk, S. Levis, P. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, M. Raupach, J. Schwinger, S. Sitch, B. D. Stocker, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle and N. Zeng, Earth System Science Data Discussions. http://bit.ly/UY8GTQ (online from Dec 2, 2012! , 1800 GMT).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know that at the recent UN World Tobacco FCTC Conference in Korea they threw the press and public out so they could conduct their main discussions on things like a World Tax in secret. Do they do that for the UN Climate conferences as well? If they do, are there enough leaks that the substance of what’s covered/decided becomes known?
😕
MJM
So, if the international agreements are supposedly not going to work, what is the appropriate method or mechanism to ensure a ramp down in CO2 emissions as per the National Academy of Sciences?
Quote:
“It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes… The plants of the world thank these strange humans that say they believe in ecology but do everything they can to suffocate said plants.
It really is an upsidedown world.
These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society. Balderdash. Urgency? We’ve seen 16 years without an increase in global temperatures and they go on about “serious impacts” and “high costs”. The fact that these statements are from the UN and their sycophants explains everything.
The urgency is that if left to itself, the current situation will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all this scaremongering was null and void, and with it the reputation of the UN.
Thank you China. The World’s plant life thanks you ! 🙂
“I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan,” added Prof Corinne Le Quéré.
“Public policies and institutions have a central role to play in supporting the widespread deployment…”
“These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society.”
Beating the agenda drum…Fortunately, the groaning depression brought on by the ever growing threat of CAGW and the lagging collection of C/CO2 tax is a highly treatable condition; be sure to take your Zoloft with low carbon food or low carbon fat free milk.
Please, let us see the natural sources for CO2 in the pie-chart as well.
RockyRoad says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Well said.
That pie chart is a rather cunning piece of propaganda by the Tyndall Centre For Climate Change all by itself. New better improved 3D pie chart that cleverly distorts visible areas to make it impossible for the prole to compare them visually.
To be honest its not really fair to fault China. The US has had per person levels around 17 tons for along time. Correct me if im wrong but China is still only around 6 tons Co2 per person. There are alot more pressing issues to the WEST than haggling over these top 10 lists. Get ur finances and internal strife in order before worrrring about what may happen 2100. Just my opinion.
Actually it had the outcome that was to be expected – carbon intensive production like the making of Solar Cells shifted to areas not affected.
“Meanwhile, blabbing climate activists at Doha try to salvage some new agreement as if that will work either.”
Define “work.” If by “work,” you mean result in an Űbergovernment, then it may work. 0bama would sign the sovereignty of the US over to such a body (collectivist, unelected, unaccountable, permanent, and without checks and balances) in a heartbeat.
Her name was written as Quere on british TV. They couldn’t do the éé. Quere that?
Luckily the world will end on the 21st an we won’t have to implement a radical plan ( to do what? ) like the Quere Professor is suggesting. These MORONS are breeding and coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches!!!
“It shows previous energy transitions in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, and the UK have led to emission reductions as high as 5 per cent each year over decade-long periods, even without climate policy.”
“Transitions” in France and UK were based on large-scale conversion to nuclear power. The “transition” in Sweden was based on a mix of nuclear and hydro power and in Denmark on importing Swedish hydro/nuclear power. I don’t know about Belgium, but I strongly suspect that they import french nuclear power.
Niels – excellent suggestion. One pie chart could have total carbon showing a segment of human emissions, and a second one could be as above.
Interesting a European Comission report had Chinese emissions near level with the EU..
7.2 tonnes per capita vs EU’s 7.5 tonnnes per capita
“Trends in Global CO2 emissions 2012 report”
edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
from this website: http://www.edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu
to quote the summary:
“In 2011, China’s average per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased by 9% to 7.2 tonnes CO2. Taking into account an uncertainty margin of 10%, this is similar to the per capita
emissions in the European Union of 7.5 tonnes in 2011, theyear in which the European Union saw a decrease in emissions of 3%. China, the world’s most populous country, is now well within the 6 to 19 tonnes/person range spanned by the major industrialised countries.”
this report is well worth a read.
Wasn’t the goal of kyoto to reduce emissions back to 2000 levels or 1990 levels or something in another 7 years or something? Since china has doubled its emissions and other countries nearlu as much doesn’t that mean we are missing the target by an awfully lot? I don’t want to seem pessimistic but it does seem unattainable? Extreme Sarcasm.
the whole AGW scam has been brilliant success for China!
In the last 10 to 14 years, the trend of CO2 in the atmosphere has started to decelerate – it is now slightly less than linear (versus the slightly exponential trend it was before).
Its hard to be sure since there is still some variability (it increases faster in warmer years and not as much as colder years), but the basic data is less than a linear rate now – the increase is 2.05 ppm per year which is decelerating at -0.002 ppm / year / year.
The natural Carbon sinks are absorbing an increasing proportion of our emissions each year so although our emissions are growing every year, this is not translating in accelerated CO2 growth.
I think we industrialized CO2ers contribute just under 5% of the .0381% CO2 total. so looking at the pie chart I see India with 5%, that would be mankind’s contribution healthy plant life and to the total pie; approximately speaking from a visual perspective and of course from a visual perspective .0381% of the atmosphere is insignificant unless you are a tree or other cellulose producing gizmoyte.
Barry Woods says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm
…………..
Barry that link does not work, but here is a working one with the emissions:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2011
One can switch from pro head to total emissions:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2011
The pie chart does distort a lot and makes wrong impression blaming whoever is placed in front.
the difference is shown even bigger here between the first and the second.
China 9.7
USA 5.4
EU 27 3.8
India 2.0
Russia 1.8
Japan 1.2
South Korea 0.6
Canada 0.6
Indonesia 0.5
It’s clear that, based on the precautionary principle, the only viable solution is for the UN to authorise the US to nuke all chinese dirty power stations for the good of the planet.
Do I really need to add a /sarc tag ?
At least here in Australia, these people know how to play the media cycle. It is Monday morning, Parliament has finished for the year, and we about to enter the media ‘silly season’.The ABC website, (complete with backlit steam emissions) and the Fairfax press are hyperventilating this morning about this.
I was particularly taken by
“Technically still possible” ?? ….please explain.
Chris Edwards says:
“the whole AGW scam has been brilliant success for China!”
I wonder what percentage of their massive CO2 increase is due to the manufacture of wind and solar devices?
And what percentage due to manufacturing moving to China ,out of area that have installed those device?
Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at UEA, led the publication of the data. She said: “These latest figures come amidst climate talks in Doha. But with emissions continuing to grow, it’s as if no-one is listening to the entire scientific community.”
_______________________________________
Correct, we are listening to the DATA!