The global economy carbon yin yang

Anybody who has watched the march of jobs overseas already knows this, but it is nice to see science has finally caught up with what we already knew years ago. Look for more of this if a Cap and Trade bill passes in the U.S.. Senator Kerry says it has a “short fuse”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it does. – Anthony

Carbon emissions ‘outsourced’ to developing countries

China is by far the largest "exporter" of carbon dioxide emissions, as seen in this map of the net flow of emissions embodied in trade among the major exporting and importing countries. Arrows indicate direction and magnitude of flow; numbers are megatons (millions of tons).

Palo Alto, CA— A new study by scientists at the Carnegie Institution finds that over a third of carbon dioxide emissions associated with consumption of goods and services in many developed countries are actually emitted outside their borders. Some countries, such as Switzerland, “outsource” over half of their carbon dioxide emissions, primarily to developing countries. The study finds that, per person, about 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide are consumed in the U.S. but produced somewhere else. For Europeans, the figure can exceed four tons per person. Most of these emissions are outsourced to developing countries, especially China.

“Instead of looking at carbon dioxide emissions only in terms of what is released inside our borders, we also looked at the amount of carbon dioxide released during the production of the things that we consume,” says co-author Ken Caldeira, a researcher in the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology.

Caldeira and lead author Steven Davis, also at Carnegie, used published trade data from 2004 to create a global model of the flow of products across 57 industry sectors and 113 countries or regions. By allocating carbon emissions to particular products and sources, the researchers were able to calculate the net emissions “imported” or “exported” by specific countries.

“Just like the electricity that you use in your home probably causes CO2 emissions at a coal-burning power plant somewhere else, we found that the products imported by the developed countries of western Europe, Japan, and the United States cause substantial emissions in other countries, especially China,” says Davis. “On the flip side, nearly a quarter of the emissions produced in China are ultimately exported.”

Over a third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to good and services consumed in many European countries actually occurred elsewhere, the researchers found. In Switzerland and several other small countries, outsourced emissions exceeded the amount of carbon dioxide emitted within national borders.

The United States is both a major importer and a major exporter of emissions embodied in trade. The net result is that the U.S. outsources about 11% of total consumption-based emissions, primarily to the developing world.

The researchers point out that regional climate policy needs to take into account emissions embodied in trade, not just domestic emissions.

“Our analysis of the carbon dioxide emissions associated with consumption in each country just states the facts,” says Caldeira. “This could be taken into consideration when developing emissions targets for these countries, but that’s a decision for policy-makers. One implication of emissions outsourcing is that a lot of the consumer products that we think of as being relatively carbon-free may in fact be associated with significant carbon dioxide emissions.”

“Where CO2 emissions occur doesn’t matter to the climate system,” adds Davis. “Effective policy must have global scope. To the extent that constraints on developing countries’ emissions are the major impediment to effective international climate policy, allocating responsibility for some portion of these emissions to final consumers elsewhere may represent an opportunity for compromise.”

###

The report is published online in the March 1, 2010 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
richard

Convincing China to rein in their economic growth is a pretty big ‘ask’ and probably impossible.
China is delighted to be part of an organisation that is hell-bent on destroying Western economies but when it comes time for their turn we’ll be unsurprised to see their reluctance, as evidenced by their objection at Copenhagen to independent inspection of carbon credit sites.

Espen

In Norway’s plan to meet it’s aggressive co2 emission cut goals, more use of first generation imported biofuels is an important element. The plan explicitly states that co2 emissions due to production will be charged to the production country’s co2 account. So the plan is to export both emissions and possibly famine to the third world – from a country rich on fossil fuel. It’s a crazy and cruel world 🙁

DirkH

This counting of where exactly CO2 is produced looks to me like a bizarre ritual of the AGW religion, of course. The AGW juggernaut will next talk about introducing import tariffs. As usual, the law of unintended consequences will strike again and they’ll unintentionally wreck some economies even more. It will be rather painful to watch.

New Zealand is one of the few countries outside of Europe that has an emissions trading scheme. Yet we mine coal and export most of it.
The biggest markets are Japan at 41% and India at 23%
To my knowledge, neither of these countries has an emissions trading scheme
http://www.coalnz.com/index.cfm/1,144,0,0,html/International-Markets
Coal NZ spent a lot of money relocating a rare species of snail that was threatened by a coal operation
http://www.coalnz.com/index.cfm/1,250,0,49,html/Snail-the-Movie
While I don’t have a problem with this per se, this contradiction of our domestic policies and our willingness to export fossil fuels has always puzzled me.

This has been pretty obvious for a while. I think the statistics is something like a quarter of US manufacturing went abroad at a time when there was an “unexplained” drop in energy usage by about 25% over what you would have expected.
And some politicians had the gall to suggest they were responsible for keeping carbon emissions (balony) under control! … Which I suppose was true in a way given their attitude to UK engineering and manufacturing!

Steveta_uk

Nice to see that India is carbon neutral.
Pachauri must be proud!

Graphite

” “Where CO2 emissions occur doesn’t matter to the climate system,” adds Davis.” LOL – How true 😀

“Levin said he would also seek another postponement … if a border adjustment plan had not been fully implemented that would add tariffs for carbon-intensive goods imported from developing countries without adequate climate policies of their own.”
Looks like they are indeed thinking about CO2 export taxes. Maybe I should become a carbon smuggler.

Vincent

Not only manufacturing jobs to China, but service jobs to India. I have been a mainframe apps programer for 30 years and noticed this pattern accelerate since the millenium. It is a given that most mainframe projects are outsourced to India, but not so many people realise that there are a lot of PC or client based projects going out there as well.
What really surprised me though, was when a colleague told me that now real estate conveyancing is being outsourced to India (for non Brits, that comprises the land and deed searches an attorney’s firm performs for home buyers). So you have a PC in India doing UK land bureau searches via the internet and emailing the report back to the attorney’s office in the UK.
When manufacturing jobs were offshored, they told us we were now a service economy. When service jobs are offshored what kind of economy does that make us then?

Patrick Davis

“Andy Scrase (00:39:58) :
New Zealand is one of the few countries outside of Europe that has an emissions trading scheme. Yet we mine coal and export most of it.”
And in Australia, we do export massive volumes of coal too (And LNG at stupid prices to China, I think about AU$4 a tonne!!!!). What the ETS means is that “developing” countries will be paid to emit CO2 by “developed” countries via their ETS systems.
Wealth redistribution (After being “filtered” by Govn’ts, crooks and Al Gore types. Oh did I use Govn’ts, Al Gore and crooks in the same sentence? Bugger!).

Patrick Davis

“Vincent (01:14:17) : ”
I hear ya. Outsourcing happened in Australia before Y2K, circa 1998, with a marjor bank, branches closed etc. Of cource it looked great for the bottom line, but customers gave them the finger and moved. Bank helpdesks not based in Australia didn’t bode well with the Australian public and still don’t.

“China is by far the largest “exporter” of carbon dioxide emissions”
The logic is unclear here (and true, the arrows on the Carnegie picture don’t clarify). The text says:
Most of these emissions are outsourced to developing countries, especially China.

Doug in Dunedin

Andy Scrase (00:39:58) says
‘New Zealand is one of the few countries outside of Europe that has an emissions trading scheme. Yet we mine coal and export most of it.
While I don’t have a problem with this per se, this contradiction of our domestic policies and our willingness to export fossil fuels has always puzzled me.’
Well that is an understatement. It is hypocritical and demonstrates a cynical contempt of the intelligence of New Zealanders for not being able to see through it. Either that or they don’t really subscribe to CAGW and are only interested in the potential tax take. As for the MSM here, it’s a non event – they are more interested in lagging behind Australia’s economy or the cricket.
Doug.

Peter Fimmel

The following particularly interesting peer reviewed paper appeared recently. It deals with the climate model of Roe & Baker and shows up some of its serious shortcomings. I’m not a climate specialist; I’m only a humble nuclear physicist. However, if the Roe & Baker model underpins important aspects of the AR4 then it may well be worth your taking a look. If Zallapin is right then the climate model in question represents yet another serious ‘mistake’.
Roe, G. H. and Baker, M. B.: Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable?
Science, 318, Issue: 5850, 629–632, 2007.
Another Look at Climate Sensitivity
Manuscript prepared for Nonlin. Processes Geophys.
with version 1.3 of the LATEX class copernicus.cls.
Date: 1 March 2010
arXiv:1003.0253v1 [physics.ao-ph] 1 Mar 2010
Ilya Zaliapin1 and Michael Ghil2
1Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Nevada, Reno, USA. E-mail: zal@unr.edu.
2Geosciences Department and Laboratoire de M´et´eorologie Dynamique (CNRS and IPSL), Ecole Normale Sup´erieure, Paris,
FRANCE, and Department of Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences and Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics, University
of California, Los Angeles, USA. E-mail: ghil@atmos.ucla.edu.
Abstract. We revisit a recent claim that the Earth’s climate
system is characterized by sensitive dependence to parameters;
in particular, that the system exhibits an asymmetric,
large-amplitude response to normally distributed feedback
forcing. Such a response would imply irreducible uncertainty
in climate change predictions and thus have notable
implications for climate science and climate-related policy
making. We show that equilibrium climate sensitivity in
all generality does not support such an intrinsic indeterminacy;
the latter appears only in essentially linear systems.
The main flaw in the analysis that led to this claim is inappropriate
linearization of an intrinsically nonlinear model;
there is no room for physical interpretations or policy conclusions
based on this mathematical error. Sensitive dependence
nonetheless does exist in the climate system, as well
as in climate models— albeit in a very different sense from
the one claimed in the linear work under scrutiny— and we
illustrate it using a classical energy balance model (EBM)
with nonlinear feedbacks. EBMs exhibit two saddle-node bifurcations,
more recently called “tipping points,” which give
rise to three distinct steady-state climates, two of which are
stable. Such bistable behavior is, furthermore, supported by
results from more realistic, nonequilibrium climate models.
In a truly nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the
response is observed only in the vicinity of tipping points.
We show, in fact, that small disturbances cannot result in
a large-amplitude response, unless the system is at or near
such a point. We discuss briefly how the distance to the bifurcation
may be related to the strength of Earth’s ice-albedo feedback.
Correspondence to: Ilya Zaliapin (zal@unr.edu)

Doug in Dunedin

The truth for New Zealand’s economy, if we were to properly address co2 emissions, is that we should close down our pastoral industries and our tourist industries because they are the greatest source of GHG emissions in NZ. This would just about close the county down – so we would be reduced to subsistence standard of living.
Doug

Alan the Brit

Nothing surprises me in this post.
OT, I have just received this morning an outcome from my UK Government complaint on its “Act on CO2” ad campaign screened on UK tv & in cinemas, etc.
As I said in a previous post, the “outcome” was completely & utterly predictable & no breeches of standards were made by the advertisers or Government. All the usual suspects were quoted by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the UN, the IPCC, WMO, UNEPP, local energy suppliers. In summary, wash, white, carpet, under, & sweep, spring to mind. Intersting phrasiology in one para & I quote …..”They said the IPCC report considered that, based on current trends, summer heat events such as 2003 (which led to 2,000 additional deaths in the UK and more than 35,000 across Europe) were expected to be considered normal by the 2040s and cool by the 2060s.” Presumably it’s going to be “cool” for thousands to die in heat related events or something I suppose?
Full disclosure will be placed on the Advertising Standards Authority site on 17th March 2010.

Baa Humbug

Re: Vincent (Mar 11 01:14),

When service jobs are offshored what kind of economy does that make us then?

I think the technical term is Richard Cranium economy RCE

old construction worker

‘Looks like they are indeed thinking about CO2 export taxes. Maybe I should become a carbon smuggler.’
I don’t know how much tax you can avoid by holding your breath as you cross the border.

AusieDan

On the radio and TV news today (ABC network are notorious AGW believers) –
news item – high ranking Chinese politician claims that AGW is real – only fringe sceptics would deny it – you can see it happening every day – floods in the south – drought in the north, huricanes – the lot.
BUT China will do nothing to stop it happening. The west have been pumping CO2 in the air for 200 years -it’s our responsibility to fix it alone. Strange – until he said that, I thought he was serious, if deluded – but now I realise he is just being a politican.
On a seperate but related note – the chairman of the ABC network, in a local newspaper, has just decried the fact that his network is so biased on AGW reporting. The ABC is government owned and the Board must adopt a hands off role as far as programming is concerned.
The ABC management are beginning to take Tony Abbott seriously (he’s the new conservative party leader and is giving the government much trouble at the moment – not too hard to find things to criticise them for either). But the AGW seems to be a step too far – the ABC would never criticse that or even give skeptics a fair hearing, not until we all freeze over.
All good fun.

Ed Murphy

Who needs Kerry?
Watch what the new green giant smiley face does about it.
Wal-Mart is making its suppliers do “the dirty work” of reducing the carbon footprint of the company’s supply chain.
Does anyone else sometimes hear Richard Nixon laughing, besides me?

ShrNfr

This all presumes that CO2 has a lot to do with global warming. As we know, it is at best a secondary forcing function at current levels. But it does demonstrate the damage that the gorebats could do to the US economy.

It gets more Byzantine by the minute.

Vincent: “When manufacturing jobs were offshored, they told us we were now a service economy. When service jobs are offshored what kind of economy does that make us then?”
A basketcase?
The lie we in the UK have been told for decades by our politicians (and that engineer hater supreme: the BBC) is that it was inevitable that manufacturing would disappear because they weren’t part of the future … that was “high tech”.
But then along came wind which couldn’t be dismissed as the “past” and was clearly going to grow (not so clear now! He He!) It was supposed to be the future, but when I got involved early on I quickly realised (correctly) that there was not a hope in hell of the UK ever having a wind industry because of the way the money was being syphoned off into useless research and being targeted (by lobbyist-led politicians) to market sectors where the UK hadn’t a hope of ever being competitive.
And remember that here in Scotland we live in the windiest and “waviest” place in Europe, with a history of engineers like Watt, we even had precisely the kind of heavy-manufacturing base in shipbuilding that was needed for wind, we even had the UK’s only >1kW successful wind-turbine manufacturer.
Scotland had everything going for it, and it should have been literally like organising an orgy in a brothel – except the overwhelmingly pathetic political system, and the stifling anti-engineering/manufacturing bias in the UK over-rode every positive advantages!

Lawrie Ayres

The egg is well and truly scrambled. I am beginning to wonder how the juggernaut can ever be stopped. I feel confident that the hypothesis of AGW is debunked but the trade in carbon is becoming the reality. The answer is to provide Mr and Mrs Joe Public, not with the science, with the cost they will have to bear because their government sold them a lie. Higher fuel bills, reduced standard of living and fewer jobs.
It has been oft repeated that it’s all about politics so the fight will have to be won in the legislatures of the US, UK, EU and smaller fish like Australia.

Mark W.

OT but interesting.
Just when you thought you were all ‘Gated’ out, we now have ASA-Gate
The final adjudication on the 939 complaints against the UK Government Propaganda campaign ‘Act on CO2’ has just been issued by the Advertising Standards Agency.
It finds that ‘ The TV ad did not breach the Code in any respect’.
It relies heavily on the discredited IPCC reports for it’s findings and the ad’s included such gems as 40% of co2 is produced by the way we heat and light our homes.
So just another whitewash from the Government. The Chairman of the ASA is Lord Smith of Finsbury, a well known alarmist who believes we should all have carbon passports.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/carbon/6527970/Everyone-in-Britain-could-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html
It is going to take a generation to remove all these zealots from important non Govermental positions.
The full report is to be published on the asa.org.uk website on the 17th March.

I now look at the Carbon scam as a mechanism to hasten the west’s inevitable demise.
I laugh when I hear Britain described as a ‘Rich’ country,for instance.
Britain’s standard of living can only be maintained with cheap imports of goods and food(mainly from China)Paid for with borrowed money, mainly from China.
That situation can not go on forever, whatever the weather (Pardon the pun).
When these cheap imports have Carbon Credits (Taxes) added, they ain’t so cheap anymore.
We all may soon have to get used to a standard of living only our Grandparents would recognize.

Bill Marsh

Out of curiosity, why doesn’t this also take into account the ‘export’ of fossil fuels as well. Aren’t the countries that ship oil to the US ‘exporting’ CO2 emissions as well?
I’ve always believed that the countries that look down their noses at the US for producing so much ‘greenhouse gas’ are hypocritical in the extreme as they are happily pumping ‘greenhouse’ gas based product (oil/gas) out of their ground and shipping it to the US. If they REALLY wanted to do something about ‘greenhouse gas’ issues they’d leave that stuff in the ground. But then States like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (and to some extent Canada) would lose most of the revenue their shaky economies depend on to function.

Joe

Mike Haseler (03:14:00) :
There is turbine technology being surpressed that is 18 times more powerful and could replace 18 wind or hydro electric turbines.
Markets don’t want this technology and have ignored it’s existance because it would permenantly lower electricity prices. Who get the taxes on electricity?
What manufacturer would sacrifice the sale of 18 turbines and accompaning equipment for one?
In Canada, we are rich in resources which is our only salvation. Free trade came in and the industries moved to the U.S. and Mexico.
Then the companies in the U.S. moved to India or China for manufacturing.
So where are the “new” companies going to come from? What are they going to produce competitively?
With so much debt and unemployment the Cities, States and government have to lay off huge amounts of people which is going to increase the problem.

John W.

This is a classic BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious). It’s the reason why any climate treaty is doomed to failure.

Martin Brumby

@Alan the Brit (02:06:25) :
”They said the IPCC report considered that, based on current trends, summer heat events such as 2003 (which led to 2,000 additional deaths in the UK and more than 35,000 across Europe) were expected to be considered normal by the 2040s and cool by the 2060s.”
I pointed out to them that, if a heatwave in 2003 was evidence of climate change, how come the severe winters 2008/9 and 2009/10 (which will have killed far more) is “only weather”.
Answer came there none.

Jimbo

Attempting to control CO2 emissions WILL FAIL for two very simple reasons. China and India are growing economic tigers who don’t NEED the USA or the EU and the internet has cast massive doubt on AGW which gives China and India lots more leg room.

Sou

@ Martin Brumby (05:03:45): I’m curious, where in the IPCC reports did it forecast ‘severe winters’ in 2008/9 and 2009/10? (AFAIK, the latest IPCC report was 2007.) And who at the IPCC did you write to?

Dave E

@ Joe
@ Mike Haseler
Speaking of wind turbine efficiency…..
Here’s an interesting read
http://nov55.com/wdm.html

Claude Harvey

“To the extent that constraints on developing countries’ emissions are the major impediment to effective international climate policy, allocating responsibility for some portion of these emissions to final consumers elsewhere may represent an opportunity for compromise.”
Compromise? A policy of “We get the jobs and you pay the bills” is what this whole controversy has always been about. It’s called “transfer of wealth’ and it is the one-world-socialists’ wet dream. Let’s get real and quit dancing around why AGW is such an attractive theory to so many.

harrywr2

The big numbers are in steel. To make a ton of steel one emits about a ton of C02.
China’s coal consumption is roughly evenly divided between steel and electricity.

renminbi

I think the Chinese and Indian officials know AGW is crap, but they see it as a chance for their businesses to milk us by selling indulgences. If we in the West will oblige, why not?
Absent Obama pulling a successful Mugabe, I don’t see the USA going along with this. People here are not brainwashed the way they are in Europe-yet. Cap and Trade here is a vote loser.

Curiousgeorge

Anthony, have you ever heard of Edwin T. Jaynes? In particular his paper on the Mind Projection Fallacy? Since the entire edifice of AGW/Climate Change argument is founded on Probability you might find this of interest.
” Once one has grasped the idea, one sees the Mind Projection Fallacy everywhere; what we have been taught as deep wisdom, is stripped of its pretensions and seen to be instead a foolish non sequitur. The error occurs in two complementary forms, which we might indicate thus:
(A) (My own imagination) —> (Real property of Nature)
(B) (My own ignorance) —> (Nature is indeterminate)”
“Probability as Logic”: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/prob.as.logic.pdf

Patrick Davis

“Doug in Dunedin (01:51:42) :
As for the MSM here, it’s a non event – they are more interested in lagging behind Australia’s economy or the cricket.
Doug.”
Like Aussies, it’s just the crukut or any other sport, Olympics and blah blah blah sport blah blah blah, roads falling apart at home, no worries, winter (non) gold for Aussies.
Yay! Thank you Aussie “sports people”….my tax dollars (Not) well spent!

Tony

I posted a comment regarding the “More on sun-climate relations” story on the “Realclimate.org” website. Reading the article, it’s obvious the author is bathing in AGW sanctified water. The gist of my post was that humans are indeed responsible for AGW because it’s 100% humans fault for manipulating, fudging, correcting, not peer reviewing, hiding, faulty coding climate data while refusing to dignify anything that contradicts their AGW viewpoint. My comment was NOT posted. The sites states that “discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.” Really? Are they telling me the very next story called “A mistaken message from IoP” is solely about science? From the story:
”'”The irony of this affair is that the IoP will not disclose who were responsible for the original statement, thus not living up to the standards they set for others.
Furthermore, it’s a paradox that the IoP based the statement on stolen private e-mail exchanges, while putting disclaimers about confidentiality, especially as it asks people to delete any e-mail before they go astray:
This email (and attachments) are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender, delete any copies and do not take action in reliance on it…””’
So, it seems Realclimate is angered not by the contents of the Climategate emails but because the emails were supposed to be private. Realclimate says the IoP is not “living up to the standards they set for others” but doesn’t Realclimate realize the dangers of spitting into the wind.

Mark

Using the same argument, back in the days when we were a major exporter, we aren’t as responsible for our CO2 emissions.

David

Steel, Harry? As in Tata Steel, founders of TERI? Next you’ll be telling us that the major cause of melting glaciers is aerosol pollution from the Indian coal industry (as used in steel plants). Pachauri is like Baron Samedi on the front of the train in Live and Let Die.

Jim

***************************
Lawrie Ayres (03:30:59) :
The egg is well and truly scrambled. I am beginning to wonder how the juggernaut can ever be stopped. I feel confident that the hypothesis of AGW is debunked but the trade in carbon is becoming the reality. The answer is to provide Mr and Mrs Joe Public, not with the science, with the cost they will have to bear because their government sold them a lie. Higher fuel bills, reduced standard of living and fewer jobs.
It has been oft repeated that it’s all about politics so the fight will have to be won in the legislatures of the US, UK, EU and smaller fish like Australia.
***************************
I think you are right about that. The total cost per person for each “carbon control” scenario needs to be calculated and widely advertised.

Steveta_uk

Vincent (01:14:17)
A couple of years ago the multinational I was working for opened a new software development centre in Beijing.
From the UK perspective, it was rather funny to hear the reactions of the comparatively overpaid developers in India who thought there jobs were to be outsourced!

Doug in Seattle

The thing is, when one realizes that CO2 is NOT the evil pollutant it is hyped up to be, all this carbon talk becomes just so stupid, just hot air and wasted time.
If it weren’t for the incredible amount of my and your money going down rat holes it might even be funny.

anna v

Re: Vincent (Mar 11 01:14),
When manufacturing jobs were offshored, they told us we were now a service economy. When service jobs are offshored what kind of economy does that make us then?
Feudal? Slave economy?
Lords over serfs, no middle class. Slaves produce locally and ships bring in the goods from abroad.
Is anybody else here fond of the fantasy world of Cordwainer Smith? Alpha Ralpha Bulevard” etc. The “Instrumentality” controlling the worlds with lords and ladies? Prophetic if this is the way we go.

jeanparisot

China gets no oil from the Middle East to sustain it’s economy? How do we in the West pull that off?
Hats off to Australia, India, and Brazil

johnnythelowery

It won’t be stopped. They are one heatwave in the US/EU/Canada from going on overdrive. They wait patiently.

johnnythelowery

Scheduling a global warming smack down in the middle of a blizzard in Copenhagen…. they are still kicking themselves.

higley7

All of this noise and discussion over something which is good for us and our food supply. CO2 is plant food!
CO2 cannot and does not drive the climate. We have not warmed for 15 years and cooled for the last 8 years. The 17 years from 1978 to 1995 is called an alarming warming trend, but, in the extreme El Nino of 1998, we did not even reach the temperature of 1953 when it was cooling from the 1938 high. But, 15 years of not warming is considered incidental. They cannot honestly and arbitrarily decide one period is climate and the other a weather event.
Beer’s Law, CO2’s absorption spectra, Henry’s Law, CO2’s thermodynamic interction with water vapor (elaborated by Miskolczi and Zagoni), and CO2’s actual 5-6 year half-life in the atmosphere (not the 200-1000 yeras of the IPCC and AGW crowd) all point to the fact that CO2 is a follower and not a leader or cause of climate.
Worry about real pollutants of the air, water, and soil, but leave CO2 alone. We need the enhanced food production it affords as we cool for the next 2-3 decades. Yes, that is COOL, making the cooling period 3 times the length of the terrifying warming.
Plants do not do well below 45 deg F. Cooling is what we should fear. We can always find warm-loving plants, but nothing grows outside if it gets too cold.
Has anyone noticed that, during the holocene, the warm peaks have been getting cooler in a downward trend. The long term looks bleak. We should be celebrating warmth; these are the times when all major civilizations have thrived, not during cold periods.
Of course, emissions controls are all about crippling the world’s economy and huge shifts in power and wealth. It is a political scam that has nothing to do with saving the planet or controlling the climate. They want to control an energy source that we cannot not use.
They built the crisis on junk science and insist loudly that it is solid, proven science, but they are lying, lying, lying. There is not one piece of defendable science behind the AGW hypothesis.
I have spent years investigating all of their claims and, entirely in keeping with Climategate and the reports of bad work by the IPCC, found all of it to be untrue or to be purposely misinterpreted or fabricated data to achieve their political goals.
How can any of their claims about the real world effects be true when it has not been warming during the time period which they are reporting. It simply cannot be.

johnnythelowery

off track completely, but, if any one is interested, i’ve found a idea on Jupitersdance.com. Anthony: Don’t mean to rustle any of your sheep. They will come back.
‘…….Research shows that large earthquakes occur at low sunspot frequencies. A sample of global earthquakes greater than Magnitude 6 for the period 1973-2005 (USGS) compared to smoothed monthly sunspot figures (SIDC) show that 71% of earthquake energy is released and 59% of earthquake events occur at lower than average sunspot activity…..’ Jupitersdance.com