Same headline, different year

Last year it was this headline, including a similar image: CO2 emissions reach record in 2012, driven by China

This year, from the University of East Anglia, via Eurekalert, a press release with a basically same headline and with obligatory smokestacks shot at low sun angles, from the description at CSIRO’s “ScienceImage

“Evening sunshine highlights smoke emissions from sugar mill chimneys near Ingham, Qld. 1990.”

Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 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. Credit: Gregory Heath, CSIRO

Next year, they’ll probably  not be able to use the photo, since it is being converted to “… operate in an environmentally friendly way, with substantially less carbon emissions than exisiting [sic] sugar mills along the Queensland coast.

Here’s this year’s offering:

Global carbon emissions set to reach record 36 billion tonnes in 2013

Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 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 2.1 per cent rise projected for 2013 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 61 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol.

Prof Corinne Le Quéré of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia led the Global Carbon Budget report. She said: “Governments meeting in Warsaw this week need to agree on how to reverse this trend. Emissions must fall substantially and rapidly if we are to limit global climate change to below two degrees. Additional emissions every year cause further warming and climate change.”

Alongside the latest Carbon Budget is the launch of the Carbon Atlas – a new online platform showing the world’s biggest carbon emitters more clearly than ever before. The Carbon Atlas reveals the biggest carbon emitters of 2012, what is driving the growth in China’s emissions, and where the UK is outsourcing its emissions. Users can also compare EU emissions and see which countries are providing the largest environmental services to the rest of the world by removing carbon from the atmosphere.

“We are communicating new science,” said Prof Le Quéré. “Everyone can explore their own emissions, and compare them with their neighbouring countries – past, present, and future.”

The Global Carbon Budget reveals that the biggest contributors to fossil fuel emissions in 2012 were China (27 per cent), the United States (14 per cent), the European Union (10 per cent), and India (6 per cent). The projected rise for 2013 comes after a similar rise of 2.2 per cent in 2012.

The rise in fossil fuel emissions in 2012 and 2013 was slower compared to the average 2.7 per cent of the past 10 years. Growth rates in CO2 for major emitting countries in 2012 were China (5.9 per cent) and India (7.7 per cent). Meanwhile the United States’ emissions declined by 3.7 per cent and Europe declined by 1.8 per cent.

Emissions per person in China matched figures in the EU at 7 tonnes in 2012. The United States is still among the highest emitter per person at 16 tonnes. By comparison people in India produce a carbon footprint of only 1.8 tonnes.

Most emissions are from coal (43 per cent), then oil (33 per cent), gas (18 per cent), cement (5.3 per cent) and gas flaring (0.6 per cent). The growth in coal in 2012 accounted for 54 per cent of the growth in fossil fuel emissions.

CO2 emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added 8 per cent to the emissions from burning fossil fuels. Cumulative emissions of CO2 since 1870 are set to reach 2015 billion tonnes in 2013 – with 70 per cent caused by burning fossil fuels and 30 per cent from deforestation and other land-use changes.

Prof Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter said: “We have exhausted about 70 per cent of the cumulative emissions that keep global climate change likely below two degrees. In terms of CO2 emissions, we are following the highest climate change scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September.”

###

The new online Global Carbon Atlas allows users to explore, visualise and interpret data of global, regional and national emissions. To find out more visit http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org.

===============================================================

You gotta love the line:

“Everyone can explore their own emissions, and compare them with their neighbouring countries – past, present, and future.”

There’s a Josh cartoon in there somewhere.

About these ads

29 thoughts on “Same headline, different year

  1. More bilge from the usual suspects then….

    Be of good cheer sensible people, the march of cyclical climate change is inexorable, and it appears to be against the meme of the CAGW brigade.

  2. “Users can also compare EU emissions and see which countries are providing the largest environmental services to the rest of the world by removing carbon from the atmosphere.”

    CO2 is fertilizer/food for the world’s trees and other plant life. It contributes to our agricultural yield that helps to feed the world. And these dim bulbs want me to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere is “providing environmental services to the rest of the world”?

    If they expect me to be enough of an idiot to believe that (I’m not and I don’t), then they are the biggest idiots of all.

  3. Prof Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter said: “We have exhausted about 70 per cent of the cumulative emissions that keep global climate change likely below two degrees. In terms of CO2 emissions, we are following the highest climate change scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September.”

    models of which all are dislocated from reality. No change there then.

  4. Regarding the photo; sugar mills use bagasse, which is the fibrous product left after pressing the sugar cane as the fuel. Fly ash is one of the resulting emissions, though it can be reduced 90% or more by wet collectors and multi-cyclones. Aside from the water vapor cloud, it would most likely be fly ash making the emissions appear dirtier than they would otherwise. The irony being that they are using biofuel which is “carbon-neutral”, and since it is actually produced on-site, it is highly efficient.

  5. These folks seemto think CO2 has an unlimited lifespan in the atmosphere. Apparently its gone inaround 40 years. Therefore, why exactly, does anyone care about cumulative totals that began over forty years ago?
    Perhaps the biggest danger is that these folks will succeed and reduce CO2 to unhealthy levels -
    apparently less than 300 PPM is not good and as I recall,below 200 PPM, life cannot exist.

  6. Whilst our houses fall into the sea and our 400 year estuary clay walls are abandoned, the UK Government (NERC) have just announced a £100m shared grant for UEA, Kent and Essex Universities to fund 60 PhD students to research climate change, extreme weather. We will get a lot more of this nonsense.

  7. No, they will still use it. The ignorance of those buying the bilge will also prevent them from knowing the plant has been converted. The picture is the game. The facts are irrelevant.

  8. Another article that highlights the lack of correlation between global temperatures and rising CO2 levels. CO2 rising ,temperatures flatlining , more proof that CO2 changes don’t affect climate.

  9. Perhaps the most mindless line is this: ““We are communicating new science,” said Prof Le Quéré.”

    Accounting ledgers as science: climate-thought reaches a new muddle.

  10. Bruce Cobb says: November 19, 2013 at 7:03 am “Regarding the photo; sugar mills use bagasse, which is the fibrous product left after pressing the sugar cane as the fuel. ”

    Just so. Worse, the enviromaniacs on Maui want them to stop burning the field greens, the leaves, in the field. That means using pesticides and herbicides to control the weeds and insects now an added benefit of burning the fields. Who will bear the additional expense, will the producers leave the dependent Island? Unintended consequences of diddling with a finely tuned process.

  11. @Richard Steward
    Maybe, just maybe, the grants were along the lines of “Is our climate/energy policy wrong”. I live in forelorn hope.

  12. Global carbon emissions set to reach record 36 billion tonnes in 2013

    This is the result since Kyoto? LOL. It’s actually worse than we thought!

    Roger Pielke Jr – 9 July 2013
    “Clean Energy Stagnation
    Growth in Renewables Outpaced by Fossil Fuels
    The world was moving faster towards reducing its reliance on carbon intensive energy consumption in the 1970s and 1980s than in the past several decades. In fact, over the past 20 years there has been little if any progress in expanding the share of carbon-free energy in the global mix. Despite the rhetoric around the rise of renewable energy, the data tells a far different story……

    The figure above shows the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources. These sources include nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass……

    However, since 1999 the proportion of carbon-free energy in the global mix has dropped slightly…….”

    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/roger-pielke-jr/clean-energy-stagnation/

    Here is Nafeez in the Guardian on the 26 September.

    The politicians are wrong – 100% renewable energy is possible

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/sep/25/politicians-miliband-wrong-100-renewable-energy-possible

    Here is again showing how naive he has been on methane on the 10 September.

    Planet3.org
    Nafeez says: September 10, 2013 at 11:43 pm
    Dear Michael
    I’m dropping by to say thank you for your posts on this, including this. They have provoked a lot of reflection for me.
    ………………………..
    On twitter when Gavin first responded saying ‘but there’s no evidence for this’ after I’d sent a link to a paper by Shakhova and Semiletov talking in some detail about methane clathrates at the ESAS and permafrost, I didn’t grasp that their discussions were actually not proven.

    Journos generally assume that strong statements of fact about science issued – whether in press releases from credible sources or in journal articles – have been checked enough to be reliable. I’m now starting to realise, with some shock, that this is not necessarily the case……….

    http://planet3.org/2013/09/05/nafeez-ahmed-responds/#comment-40721

  13. OK—”Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 billion tonnes…” and the critical question is: SO WHAT???

    The reason? IF (big “if”) IPCC estimates are reasonable, their 2001 report showed that anthropogenic CO2 is only a negligible fraction of all CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year, at that time about 2.9% (according to their data, which I no longer have a link for—darn!) and are currently something on the order of 3.25%! Dealing in absolute amounts is a red herring for the real issue—the miniscule relative amount produced by human activity.

  14. “Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 billion tonnes – according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project…”

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the plant kingdom and it’s trusty side kick sunshine were waiting breathlessly to convert 36 billion tons of CO2 into 24 billion tons of SUGAR.

  15. “Emissions must fall substantially and rapidly…”

    And how might this be done? Ya know when you live in a modeled reality instead of the real one, you make these kind of stupid comments. You’re certainly not going to shut India and China down or even fossil fuel energy in most parts of the world because there are no substitutes. On a smaller scale, if I have a permit to have built and to operate a sugar refinery, or what have you, you are going to have a legal battle on your hands to get me to shut it down. Finally, if Drax Power can legally burn timber cut down in North Carolina as a carbon neutral switch from coal, then emitting CO2 from sugar refineries must be equally carbon neutral (unlike the trees, it takes only a season to regrow the sugar cane. Sheesh all this crap time budgeted to be published during the annual CO2 yawnfests, like that in Warsaw!

  16. “Today, the average rate of energy capture by photosynthesis globally is approximately 130 terawatts, which is about six times larger than the current power consumption of human civilization. Photosynthetic organisms also convert around 100–115 thousand million metric tonnes of carbon into biomass per year.” -WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

    Tell me again where that “missing heat” *may* be hiding?

  17. “The Global Carbon Budget reveals that the biggest contributors to fossil fuel emissions in 2012 were China (27 per cent), the United States (14 per cent), the European Union (10 per cent), and India (6 per cent). The projected rise for 2013 comes after a similar rise of 2.2 per cent in 2012.

    The rise in fossil fuel emissions in 2012 and 2013 was slower compared to the average 2.7 per cent of the past 10 years. Growth rates in CO2 for major emitting countries in 2012 were China (5.9 per cent) and India (7.7 per cent). Meanwhile the United States’ emissions declined by 3.7 per cent and Europe declined by 1.8 per cent.”

    Well less than a decade ago the U.S. was reportedly responsible for more than a quarter of annual world carbon emissions. Without embracing any of the brain dead policies of the climate alarmists that contribution is now less than a seventh of the total. What has driven that amazing turnaround has, of course, been the drilling and fracking revolution, which environmental NGOs and governments have been doing their very best to derail at every step of the way. This has not stopped Barry and his gang of envirothugs from claiming credit for these developments, even as they continue their relentless efforts to stop and reverse them. Just today Barry promised to veto legislation designed to smooth the way for energy production.

    Personally I don’t accept that reducing CO2 emissions is a necessary or even desirable policy goal, but if you sincerely believe otherwise, you should be selling “fracking” as hard as Ron Popeil hawking Vegamatics

  18. It’s worse than we thought!

    By P Gosselin on 19. November 2013

    According to 53-page report here released by environmental activist group urgewald.org/, which looks at financing of the coal industry by major banks, global coal consumption has risen “ to a staggering 7.9 billion tons annually”; that’s a 69% increase since the year 2000. A real “climate catastrophe” hyperventilates the Urgewald report!

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/19/while-global-coal-consumption-jumps-70-since-2000-global-temperature-falls-0-03c-since-2002/#comment-898334

    It’s not called the great coal comeback for nothing. Coal is the oldl/new biofuel for tomorrow. I love making Warmists crazy.

  19. There must be something wrong with my logic – The CSIRO tells me so.

    A farmer plants 100 acres of Sugar Cane. The cane grows, getting the majority of its food from the photosynthesis of CO2.

    The sugar cane is harvested – rubbish burnt, processed and the sugar used in one form or another.

    The cane is replanted and the cycle starts.

    Net CO2 output is zero. Wonder how they propose to reduce CO2 emissions.

  20. The smoke stacks indeed are from cane sugar factories, burning the cane rests once the sugar is pressed out. Have seen them smoking during our trip Cairns to Adelaide in 2002 (including the eclipse in the middle of the outback)…
    Seems that they should do something about the smoke. Coal use by power plants is far cleaner than that (or better regulated?)…

  21. Just think: It is not just the combustion in the boilers for sugar processing which creates CO2, just imagine how much CO2 will be produced when the sugar is consumed.

  22. With all these co2 emissions I would have expected a statistically significant rise in global surface temperatures since 1997? Or is the IPCC mistaken and it went hiding into the deep oceans? Or is Dana mistaken and it was alway present (and hiding) in the Arctic? Where is my missing heat??? I miss you. Why can’t you hang around with the thermometers? :-(

  23. Scotland approves controversial coal mine
    Scotland has one of the most advanced clean energy programs, with the amount of renewable energy generated in the country reaching a historical record of more than 14,600 gigawatt hours in 2012.
    The nation’s goal is to generate 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2015 and 100% by 2020.
    Obviously “renewable isn’t working” for Scotland.

    http://www.mining.com/scotland-decides-future-of-controversial-coal-mine-80386/

  24. @ PaulC

    In fact, because a lot of the carbon the cane takes in is sequestered temporarily around peoples’ waists, in the short term the industry is significantly carbon negative. :-)

  25. Paul C (and Bruce Cobb and Doug Huffman above):
    Green harvesting is almost universal in Queensland except in the Burdekin; it has many benefits including reducing run off of soil and weedicides, reducing weedicides as the trash blanket inhibits weeds, reducing the amount of irrigation needed, and improving soil structure. Mills use nearly all of their bagasse to power the mills. In the slack or off-season, and when bagasse is in short supply, coal is used at refineries. The govt grant was to store and transport surplus bagasse to reduce coaL use at Mackay refinery, and to improve co-generation in a number of mills. Very little dark smoke comes out of mill chimneys nowadays, just lots of steam. It’s a spectacular sight but has nothing to do with CO2.

  26. @Ken

    True of course

    Wonder how many remember the cane fields being burnt before harvest to get rid of the rubbish and kill the snakes so men could harvest by hand

  27. Since the climate scientist claim that there is forcing or positive feedback why do we not have even worse temperature rises than predicted rather than them having to cherry pick not just times but data extracts of different data sets to get warming?

Comments are closed.