Guest Post by WUWT Regular “Just The Facts” 
While the Pause in Earth’s temperature continues, currently 17 years and 10 months based upon RSS satellite data, it is important to note that Fossil Fuel and Cement CO2 emissions are at their highest levels ever.
We have been told by NASA “that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG)” and by NOAA’s UCAR that “the current spike in carbon dioxide is sure to result in a rapid increase in global temperature”. Anthroprogenic CO2 emissions have increased by over 60% since 1990;
and “the world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010.”
“That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.’” Economist
In order to make it easier to watch Atmospheric CO2 levels rise;
while Earth’s Temperature does not, we are pleased to introduce WUWT’s newest addition, the WUWT CO2 Reference Page. The WUWT CO2 Page offers an array of graphs on Atmospheric CO2, Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions and Land Use Change Based CO2 Estimates. In addition to the WUWT CO2 Reference Page. if you have not had the opportunity to our other Reference Pages they are highly recommended:
- Atmosphere Page
- Atmospheric Oscillation Page
- CO2 Page
- ENSO (El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation) Page
- “Extreme Weather” Page
- Geomagnetism Page
- Global Climate Page
- Global Temperature Page
- Great Lakes Ice Page
- Northern Polar Vortex Page
- Northern Regional Sea Ice Page
- Ocean Page
- Oceanic Oscillation Page
- Polar Vortex Page
- Paleoclimate Page
- Potential Climatic Variables Page
- Sea Ice Page
- Solar Page
- Spencer and Braswell Papers
- Tornado Page
- Tropical Cyclone Page
- US Climate Page
- US Weather Page
Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data within the Reference Pages, as WUWT is simply an aggregator. All of the data is linked from third party sources. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the graphs on the WUWT Reference Pages, or have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the pages, please let us know in comments below.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It appears that the biggest contributors to global warming is NASA and NOAA,
I reject the conclusion that human beings are the source of any of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The source of the carbon in the CO2 is fossil fuels. The source of the carbon in fossil fuels was prehistoric plant matter, and the source of the carbon in prehistoric plant matter was the atmosphere. Man burning fossil fuels is but a very small part of the age old natural carbon cycle. Man is simply facilitating getting the CO2 back into the atmosphere, whence it came.
Obfuscation nation. Where is your *fraud* page?!
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
You don’t even include a simple plot of the world average of tide gauges!!!!! [snip too many ! -mod]
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
Russell Klier says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:22 pm
I reject the conclusion that human beings are the source of any of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
——————————————————
While I agree with your statements in general, the above statement would mean that none of us exhales. Respiration produces CO2 and is exhaled into the atmosphere.
the more I learn about Climate Change.. the more I realize that increased warmth and CO2 concentration are a net benefit to the planet….
all of the major life/evolution explosions happened during periods of higher than current warmth/CO2…
NikFromNYC says: August 2, 2014 at 7:24 pm
NOAA – National Climatic Data Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Obfuscation nation. Where is your *fraud* page?!
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
Eventually…
You don’t even include a simple plot of the world average of tide gauges!!!!! [snip too many ! -mod]
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg>
I added NOAA NCDC Sea-Level Deviation;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
to the WUWT Ocean page and Global Climate page,
[Reply: Don’t snip, mod!! Pixels are free. ~Sr. Mod.]
Don Perry says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:44 pm
Russell Klier says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:22 pm
I reject the conclusion that human beings are the source of any of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
——————————————————
While I agree with your statements in general, the above statement would mean that none of us exhales. Respiration produces CO2 and is exhaled into the atmosphere.
————————————
Go over to Skeptical Science and ask them about this and they will say, I kid you not, that humans don’t breathe out CO2.
Thanks to “Just the Facts” and WUWT for being an aggravator…oh, I mean aggregator of all this data, references and information, After being to a third party and all ( All of the data is linked from third party sources. ) it’s great to come here for some recovery and interesting reading.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
What bothers me is despite the “pause” and the empirical evidence contrary to AGW the media hasn’t let up one bit and the warmists are getting away with continuing their hoax. You would think by now the average person would suspect a flaw in AGW and tell the emperor he isn’t wearing any clothes.
Don Perry says:
“While I agree with your statements in general, the above statement would mean that none of us exhales. Respiration produces CO2 and is exhaled into the atmosphere”
Yes…. but the carbon came from our food…and the food all goes back to plant matter….and the carbon in the plant matter came out of the atmosphere.
mark l says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 pm
What bothers me is despite the “pause” and the empirical evidence contrary to AGW the media hasn’t let up one bit and the warmists are getting away with continuing their hoax. You would think by now the average person would suspect a flaw in AGW and tell the emperor he isn’t wearing any clothes.
Mark, let the Pause make it 20 years, then you will see they finally will wake up. Cheers
I object to the smokestack photo in the Carbon Scene chart showing dark smoke entering the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is invisible…as well as odorless and tasteless. That picture implies a great inaccuracy often thrown at us by Al Gore et al when they talk of tons and tons of carbon entering our atmosphere each day as a result of the activities of mankind.
John Coleman,
Gore etal show the smoke stacks because a cement truck is not as scary.
To further make the point please show a scatter plot of CO2 emissions version temperature over the last 17 years… you will see a complete shotgun with no correlation Rsquared =zero.zero.
John Coleman says: August 2, 2014 at 8:19 pm (Edit)
Geovisualist – Le Quere et al 2013, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
I object to the smokestack photo in the Carbon Scene chart showing dark smoke entering the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is invisible…as well as odorless and tasteless. That picture implies a great inaccuracy often thrown at us by Al Gore et al when they talk of tons and tons of carbon entering our atmosphere each day as a result of the activities of mankind.
Good point. I’ve replaced the Global Carbon Project,1990 – 2013 Global Fossil Fuel and Cement Emissions graph,, with the same graph excluding the misleading smokestacks:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
My favorite “invisible”, “odorless and tasteless” CO2 canard is an ABC video with Stephen Schneider, “Hero Scientist Says Titanic Earth Need Not Sink” “Invisible greenhouse gasses made visible – frightening, but may be controllable”, The simulation of “CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions” at around 3 minutes into the video is classic, “if we could see them say experts, would look something like this”…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/video/hero-scientist-titanic-earth-sink-global-warming-hope-save-control-climate-science-stephen-schnieder-11360895
Steve Goddard has noticed something interesting: “…the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the magnitude of USHCN data tampering” shows a 1:1 correlation.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/#comments
“What bothers me is despite the “pause” and the empirical evidence contrary to AGW the media hasn’t let up one bit and the warmists are getting away with continuing their hoax. You would think by now the average person would suspect a flaw in AGW and tell the emperor he isn’t wearing any clothes.”
Reference: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf
Politicized climate science is just the means to promote an undemocratic global government.
They don’t care if CAGW/UNFCCC is true or not. They only care about dressing CO2 up as being “the belief in the ‘end of history’” etc. it’s a propaganda war against nations and the individual.
If we were to consider a breakdown of the estimated amounts of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year from the oceans, volcanic activity, animals, rotting vegetation, bacteria, etc., it would demonstrate that the number of giga tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity (i.e. burning fossil fuels; land use; etc) is quite insignificant.
To therefore just pick on human-activity carbon dioxide, tweaking it by just a small percentage, in the belief that this will miraculously prevent global average temperature rising by 2 degrees and, in turn, halt climate change and prevent future climate catastrophes, well… that is just unscientific nonsense.
Yet look at some of those who honestly believe this nonsense… individuals like President Obama, Prince Charles, Al Gore, and David Suzuki. What else can we expect from such people when we see the likes of Obama lecturing us with “the science is settled” and Prince Charles preaching a “CO2 tipping point” in a few more years resulting in doom for us all. Such statements make such individuals appear dumber than they look!
But at least we can excuse Obama, Prince Charles, etc for their ignorance. They are just stupid when it comes to climate science.
We cannot, however, excuse the various science academies around the world for their role in promoting dangerous man-made global warming, and allowing themselves to be used as a tool of politics and the environmental movement. Organisations like the Royal Society have thus brought science into disrepute. And that is a damn shame!
“Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001
So I have two questions on the CO2 data.
1. The Fossil fuel and cement emissions CO2 graph shows a clear dip in anthropogenic CO2 production in the 2008-2009 time frame as the world’s economies contracted during the Great recession. But if man-made CO2 is driving the majority of the atmospheric increase, why did this dip not show up in the Keeling curve (the Mauna Loa measurement)?
2. The precision Keeling curve CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa started in 1958. If CO2 is actually lagging temperature rise with some delay, meaning CO2rise is an effect not a cause, then the global temperature rise is causing CO2 to increase. Likely culprits could include thawed permafrost breakdown/decay and/or ocean outgassing. IF the previous statement is true, then the CO2 levels should start to level off soon if Global temps are stabilizing or even decreasing. Has anyone predicted a CO2 rate decrease or leveling? If so, are they making credible, verifiable hypotheses?
One thing that is too often overlooked is the variation of CO2 with latitude. Too much obsession with MLO as global “average”. While it is accurate to describe it as “well mixed” it is not totally homogenous world over. The annual variation at Arctic stations like Alert , Canada is much larger than at MLO.
If you want a CO2 ref page it should include a broader view than just Mauna Loa data. There is a strong dependance of magnitude of annual swing with latitude.
Here is what Alert looks like. Annual swing of around 18 ppmv,
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=970
You’ll find the data source in the text.
cf 5 or 6 ppmv at MLO
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=721
First time I see the cummulative CO2 emissions graph, I was more familiar with the Mauna Loa one. Thanks for the reference page.
Obviously, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. Big emmisions started in the fifties, first temperature increase started in the thrties. Then temperatures drop (before adjustments were made) while emissions levels keep accelerating, then temperatures raise again, and now the pause. I don’t see any correlation.
Santa Baby wrote. ““Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001”
My reading of Holdren is that he probably regrets saying that on the record.
PS Schauinsland , near Freiburg in Germany is very similar to Alert.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=985
Timing of CO2 at high latitude closely resembles changes in ice area, for much of the year.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=996
urederra says:
“Obviously, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. Big emmisions started in the fifties, first temperature increase started in the thrties. Then temperatures drop (before adjustments were made) while emissions levels keep accelerating, then temperatures raise again, and now the pause. I don’t see any correlation.”
The correlation is the other way around. Change in SST causing CO2 change:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=225