Guest post by Ed Hoskins
Prof Richard Muller in a presentation made last October [1] made the dilemma facing the warmists abundantly clear:
The developing world is ‘not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.
So the whole warmist idea is a creature of a limited number of developed western nations whose governments have been persuaded by the control Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption agenda.
These notes using information on emission levels by nations published by the Guardian and Google [2] re-emphasize Professor Muller’s initial point.
Grouping Nations
Here 7 groups of major emitting nations are defined according to their attitudes towards CO2 control measures as follows:
Not Joining-in
China questions the role of man-made CO2 in determining climate effects and is now the largest CO2 emitter, having surpassed the USA in 2006, and is now greater than the USA by more than 40%. China completes a new coal-fired power plant each week. China has made the gesture of being willing to link the intensity of its emissions to be dependent on its GDP growth. In effect this is no concession at all [3].
India has set up its own climate institute to re-examine the claims and policy recommendations made by the IPCC and grew its emissions by ~9% in 2009. It too has said that it will comply with the intensity criterion. Also in effect this is no concession at all.
The well-developed nations Russia, Canada and Japan have already withdrawn support for the Kyoto accord.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia are the larger developing nations do not support action on Man-made Global Warming, and they will continue their rapid growth of CO2 emissions.
The “Rest of the World” (200+ Nations), ~19% of world CO2 emissions and ~40% of the world population, mainly consist of some 200+ underdeveloped or developing nations. They are not interested in limiting their emissions nor in restricting their slowly improving standards of living. But they are expecting to be the financial beneficiaries at the expense of the ‘developed nations’ of the ‘western Climate Change process’.
In the USA the Republican congress, is re-examining:
- the scientific inconsistencies of the Man-made Global Warming assertion
- the reliance of the Environmental Protection Agency on the reports of the UN IPCC
- and thus to terminate any USA response to mitigate Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
- The USA congress has just mandated that all support for “Green” international activities should be terminated[4].
A failure to commit by USA adds about 18% to the current world emissions not falling under the influence of any CO2 controls. The withdrawal of the USA would then mean that about 85% of world emissions and 92% of the world population were no longer involved in any action on controlling CO2.
Joining-in
An opt-out by the USA leaves the European Union, Australia and New Zealand isolated in their continuing adherence to the Man-made Global Warming assertion.
It is only in the EU, (including the UK, ~1.7% of World CO2 emissions or ~11% of EU emissions), as well as Australia and New Zealand where their governments have committed action on CO2 into legislation.
These isolated nations are about 8% of the world population and only~14% of the world’s CO2 emissions at present.
The failure of universal action entirely negates the unilateral action of any individual nation.
So the realistic apparent position based on current published CO2 emissions is shown below.
So these adherent nations have isolated themselves by their own self-emolliating actions on the basis that it is their duty to show an example to the rest of the world. However their actions alone can only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of world temperature.
Other dissenting nations may pay lip service to the efforts of the United Nations and the IPCC but they are certainly not going to change their attitudes and damage their economies in the same manner.
This is the stark reality of the majority of national attitudes, which are opposed to the present views of the United Nations as represented by the UN IPCC, the EU and Australian and New Zealand governments.
The real effect of the maximum feasible actions on CO2 emissions reduction that are being taken by this minority of nations and thus their influence on ostensibly on reducing temperature is to minimal effect. This becomes trivially clear just by comparing the current emission status against the most likely IPCC stated temperature rise from added emissions of 1.2°C by 2100 (1.8°C “Scenario B1” versus 0.6°C if all world-wide emissions stopped in 2000):
- only nations representing ~14% of the worlds current emissions (the European Union, Australia and New Zealand), are making any progress = ~ -0.0623°C
- even with massive disruption and damage to their economies the maximum they might achieve is a 30% emissions reduction = ~ -0.0187°C
- The UK contributes only 11% of the emissions in this active group amounting to ~0.00224°C by 2100.
- Australia contributes even less and its actions might amount to ~0.00177°C by 2100.
But growth of emissions from developing countries including China, India and other underdeveloped nations continues. China is predominant and India is following on probably at a greater future rate but to a lower absolute extent by 2100 [5].
According to the Guardian / Google data the following graph shows the emissions growth over the past 10 years.
And shown below are the percentage increases both for the last ten years since 1999 and also the annual rate of increase 2008-2009.
A further useful alternative perspective can be seen in the long-term CO2 emissions data recently published by BP up until 2010[6].
This clearly shows:
- the inexorable growth of past emissions from the developing economies since 1965,
- the rapid escalation of Chinese emissions since the year 2000 which still continues apace
- the recent accelerating advance of emissions from India, a nation which has very substantial potential for further emissions growth from a very low base.
This graphic also shows a leveling out of developed economies but with an uptick in 2010 as they recover from the recession of 2009.
The historic figures of CO2 emissions set out here show clearly that China, India, the “major developing nations” and the “rest of the world” are clearly not joining-in the action on CO2 emissions reduction. These increases in emissions will totally negate any efforts, however strenuous, of the developed world where emissions are already significantly stabilized, even in the USA. It is clear that the failure of worldwide universal action will entirely negate the unilateral action of any individual nation or groups of nations. Any effort is therefore a total folly and the sooner this is realized, in spite of the huge academic and monetary capital already invested, the sooner the western world can be released from its self-imposed economically destructive straightjacket.
[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&NR=1
[2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data
[2]https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1
[3]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hold-the-accolades-on-chinas-green-leap-forward/2011/04/19/AFLdZMEE_story.html
[4]http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/173601-gop-spending-bill-would-nix-international-climate-aid
[5]http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-second-commitment-period
[6]http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669
In Australia one of our biggest alarmists has bought himself two waterside properties and admitted there will be no problem in his lifetime and probably not even to 2100.
This was revealed a few months after he spent time trying to scare the bejeezus out of us all with predictions of 8 storey high walls of water inundating the coastal inhabitants – apparently he forgot to mention these things may happen on a 50,000 to 100,000 year time scale.
Like all CAGW the man is a fraud. I often wondered if they were stupid or involved in a scam – now I think both ’cause history will judge them harshly when the jig is up.
We are hoping that German manufacturing becomes less compeditive, American electicity more expensive and that the carbon dioxide trading industry in Europe remain corrupt.
Bring your knowledge, skills and innovation to Canada, we have everything else you will need.
PS.
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
“As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.
Ed
Any chance of calculating the NZ % figure to join the dot points on how much the UK and Australia will drop temperatures by.
Thanks Margaret
Michael Klein says:
August 7, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Patience! We global warming alarmists don’t (or shouldn’t) expect results overnight. This is going to take a long time, but eventually, we’re confident we’ll get everybody on board. It’s just a question of letting the evidence build.
============================
What evidence? Seriously. WHAT evidence?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
As an Australian the statement “even with massive disruption and damage to their economies the maximum they might achieve is a 30% emissions reduction = ~ -0.0187°C” hits hard because our Beloved Leader wants to go for a 80% target.
Wow, what an onslaught! The question should perhaps be, is it morally valid to keep kicking Bystander?
Emission is increasing much more than predicted on Kyoto conference; that will increase the temperature by 2060, by 5-6C. Top instigators are realizing that the temperature is not changing; they are looking for backdoor exit. Lots of tax dollars have being laundered to prevent the phony GLOBAL warming. Money collected should be kept in trust account; for when reality sinks; when my proofs are known to the world – with those money need to build lots of big new jails for the Apparatchiks. Crime shouldn’t pay. The truth: CO2 is not a GLOBAL warming gas. There is no any GLOBAL warming, or GLOBAL cooling. Only warmth and coldness constantly shift places and always will. Get all the solid proofs on my website http://www.stefanmitich.com.au and keep collecting evidences from the protagonist; for when ‘’the truth and reconciliation’’ comes. Don’t let them of the hook. Help me spread the solid proofs / facts to the society. Lies don’t change the truth. Oxygen and nitrogen are controlling the temperature, by expanding when warmed – shrinking when cooled; not IPCC and the shonky climatologist.
A friend of mine calls it the Coyote Treaty, because it’s very Wile E. Both of you are right.
There is a sort of warmist argument to be drawn from these figures. If you make a ratio of %emissions against %population, then the West is producing more than it’s fair share of deadly, toxic, CO2. Unfortunately, empirical evidence suggests that CO2 has vastly less impact on planetary warming than warmist models predict to the point where 10 years of CO2 increase has coincided with 10 years of global temperature decline. Oh, and trees and plants are growing more quickly and crops are producing heavier yields.
“So these adherent nations have isolated themselves by their own self-emolliating actions on the basis that it is their duty to show an example to the rest of the world.”
Hmmm is that treally true? World leaders in wind-turbine technology in Germany in Denmark. World leading CFL lamp technology in Holland and Germany. World leading nuclear energy technology in France. High efficiency diesel car technology in Germany and France. Dependent on gas imports from Putin’s Russia, oil imports from the middle East and coal from Africa and Australia.
Fact is that Europe intended to save a lot of money in imports and export a lot of high tech equipment on the back of this band-wagon they created. Anybody that ever goes to the European Parliament in Brussels will be left in no doubt that it is in the hands of big business and the green energy business is the key talking point right now.
Rosco – good point . . . how many of these alarmists are trying to scare the population away from beach view homes to force coastal house prices down so they can clean up . . .! In this cynical, manipulative world, almost anything is possible . . .
Hi Interstellar Bill
You are dead right my spelling is definitely in error I apologise. Now I have looked it up in Webster’s it seems particularly apposite.
Definition of SELF-IMMOLATION
: a deliberate and willing sacrifice of oneself often by fire
— self–I’m·mo·late
Energy use is not going to be emissions-driven.
It’s going to be efficiency-driven, and that’s an economic issue and a resource issue.
Emissions are going to be a particulate/pollution issue (soot, NO2, SO2), and much has already been/is being accomplished along those lines. The harmless byproducts (water and CO2) are not a concern.
Therefore, the AGW mantra is a dead horse, and those that beat it (EU, AUS) beat thier own economic horses in a gesture of futility.
What if CO2 did not drive climate? Would we then need to spend all these trillions of $,£ etc. on this useless climate change mitigation?
The EU’s policy is quite obviously futile. But futility sometimes has a place. Some may recall this sketch from the 1960s British comedy “Beyond the Fringe”:
It opens with Peter Cook, in the uniform of a senior RAF officer, entering to the sound of airmen singing heartily around a piano.
Cook: Perkins! (Jonathan Miller, dressed as a Pilot Officer, breaks away from the singing) Sorry to drag you away from the fun, old boy. War’s not going very well, you know.
Miller: Oh my God!
Cook: …war is a psychological thing, Perkins, rather like a game of football. You know how in a game of football ten men often play better than eleven?
Miller: Yes, sir.
Cook: Perkins, we are asking you to be that one man. I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Get up in a crate, Perkins, pop over to Bremen, take a shufti, don’t come back. Goodbye, Perkins. God, I wish I was going too.
Miller: Goodbye, sir – or is it – au revoir?
Cook: No, Perkins.
@Bystander: The others stopped trying to ride the dead horse.
But our governments insist on hitting our children (they will have to pay the bill for all of the useless anti-climate-change projects).
Gallopingcamel,
My first point is that a minor change in natural emissions, equals a major change in anthropogenic emission, even doubling the current emissions, so there is no point in trying to mitigate anything.
My 2nd point is that if Salby is Correct, than the reasons for the rise in CO2 concentration are changes in air temperature, weather they occurred now or 800 years ago as you claim, but not burning of fossil fuel.
You are correct in stating that the supporting material of Salby’s research is not yet available, but nobody is challenging his claim regarding my first point.
I limited my argument only to the subject of Ed Hoskins’ article, there are many other strong reasons for doubting the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Nearly all energy on our planet originates from the sun and is stored in the oceans and atmosphere. AGW theory states that humans are/would be causing a temperature rise due to our activities, impinging on the climate.
So, we humans are causing a rise in the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans. Let’s do some simple math.
The total weight of the oceans is 1.39 x 10^18 metric tonnes
The weight of the atmosphere is 5.28 x 10^15 metric tonnes
Total combined weight of hydrosphere and atmosphere is 1,395,280,000,000,000,000 metric tons.
Total weight of live human beings is 6.5 billion x 70 Kg =455,000,000 metric tons
Ratio of mass of (atmosphere+ hydrosphere)/mass of humans = 3,066,549,450
So, for every ton of live human beings there are 3 billion tons of water and air,
or
for every human being there ares 233 million tons of water and air.
How can I, 70Kgs of me, affect 233 million tons of water and air? I just wonder.
D. J. Hawkins said:
“In my view the warministas are more like the grumpy neighbor insisting the kids are going to fill in the creek if they keep skimming pebbles across it. See? That makes it much easier to ignore. Laugh at, even.”
That is a far better analogy than kicking a dog, but the kids have a much better chance of filling a creek with pebbles, or at least changing the creek’s flow, than the chance humans have of changing Earth’s climate or ocean chemistry by altering CO2, or kicking dogs.
Tokyoboy says:
“However, for these six years already, I don’t see hide nor hair of any change, nada, zilch, in the time course of the CO2 curve:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/MaunaLoaCO2.png”
So true. If you sum the curves of CO2 emissions since about 2003, there should definitely be a noticeable acceleration of CO2 rise in the atmosphere, after taking into account the “mixing period.” To my eye, doesn’t seem to be happening – hockey stick emissions, no hockey stick in the atmosphere.
A similar theme was struck here in Feb:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-futility-of-trying-to-limit-co2-emissions/
I haven’t had time to compare it to this WUWT post, unfortunately.
ango says:
August 7, 2011 at 5:35 pm
a birdy has told me that Al Gore has joined a asylium boat heading to Christmas island off australia
===
laughing…hope he likes asian food, that where all the boat arrivals are now to be sent.
Ryan says:
August 8, 2011 at 1:54 am
“World leaders in wind-turbine technology in Germany in Denmark.”
Are economically unviable without continuing subsidies; are intermittent; require all the old infrastructure to keep grid alive when no wind; change the microclimate, making it hotter and drier, make surrounding area unusable for human settlement.
“World leading CFL lamp technology in Holland and Germany.”
Don’t get me started on my EU noddy lamp. Need replacement Halogen lamps URGENTLY.
“World leading nuclear energy technology in France.”
That has more to do with Charles De Gaulle’s ideas and less with the AGW scare. And it is exactly NOT about efficiency – electricity in France is abundant and costs a third of German prices. So they use it and export it to ‘leccy-starved UK and Germany.
“High efficiency diesel car technology in Germany and France.”
One of my cars was a Ford Escort Turbo Diesel and just as good as a comparable German car. Extreme taxation of Gasoline and to a slightly lesser extent Diesel in Germany makes it economical to spend more on a more complex, more efficient engine. It’s the usual tradeoff, nothing more.
“and the green energy business is the key talking point right now.”
They have an enormous amount of lobbyists, as they live primarily off taxpayers and ratepayers money. So no wonder that everybody in Brussels talks about that. Nevertheless, those Green energy companies are tanking, due to cheaper competition from China, and increasingly emptied public purses.
But we’ll feel better about ourselves! Don’t you want to feel better about yourself? Wouldn’t you like to feel morally and intellectually superior to those who don’t want to reduce carbon emissions? Why wouldn’t you want to go along with the program? Don’t you care about anybody else’s feelings?
‘So these adherent nations have isolated themselves by their own self-emolliating actions on the basis that it is their duty to show an example to the rest of the world.’
Quite right! I would like to show an example in neighborliness and trustworthiness, so I’m going to leave all my doors unlocked from now on. That’ll work, won’t it? /sarc