A graphical look at worldwide CO2 numbers

Some numbers that you may find interesting, graphed by Ed Hoskins from France.

image

Here’s more:

image

Another way of looking at the same data:

image

Comparison 1

image

Comparison 2

image

Growth of CO2 emissions

image

China is the biggest emitter now.

image

The data supporting this was all published by BP up from 1965 till 2011:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GlynnMhor

It might be helpful to learn what RU, JP, CN, ZA, etc mean. I can guess at some of them, but others are unclear.

nc

Ok, fine. How does this compare with natural c02?

Rosco

I find it interesting that Australia is lumped in with the EU and NZ.
Although China burn it a significant amount of the CO2 from China comes from coal that originates in Australia.
Funny how we pay a carbon tax on amounts that are too insignificant to include seperately but we export to China huge amounts carbon tax free.
What a joke – we have a tax to reduce our emissions while we can’shovel the stuff to China quick enough.
I always said our Government was either dumb or a Fraud – or both !

Rosco

And all of this is still completely dwarfed by natural sources of CO2

clipe

GlynnMhor says:
November 23, 2012 at 3:02 pm
It might be helpful to learn what RU, JP, CN, ZA, etc mean. I can guess at some of them, but others are unclear.

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/helpctry.htm

Rosco

Funny how Australia is considered so insignificant it doesn’t deserve its own catagory.
Most of China’s CO2 from coal is sourced from Australia.
We pay a carbon tax for the small amount we burn and the Greenies are happy.
Our Government makes us pay while actively escalating tax free exports to China and encouraging plans to double that trade !
Now that sounds like a sensible environmental policy shaped by committed environmentalists.

FergalR

Here’s why; for the last few years and planned several years in the future China’s building the equivalent of the entire UK’s generating capacity in coal-fired plant – every year. 1.25GW a week – that’s 2 large power stations worth every 7 days.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2937g46.jpg
From: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

It’s quite depressing really to see how totally irrelevant our co2 emissions are here in the uk yet no govt has been more enthusiastically trying to reduce them at great cost to industry and the public than ours.
Tonyb

Merovign

So basically China likes plants better than the rest of us?

Sam Hall

Go here for a list of country codes.

J Martin

Chinese co2 per head is not far off that of the EU now, so I wonder if we might start to see a reduction in that impressive rate of co2 emissions growth.

AndyG55

The huge increase in CO2 by China, coincides very well with the period of zero warming. 😉

FergalR

J Martin; China’s per capita CO2 passed the EU earlier this year.

Joe

So here in the UK (as part of Europe), our emmissions have been essentially flat since the early 1970s, yet they’ve announced today that we’ll be paying something like 7.5 billion on our energy bills to finance new green generation.
Over £100 per household extra, when we’re already suffering,to reverse a non-existant trend in our emissions for the past 40 years.
Vive La revolution!

clipe
beesaman

Now lets see Greenpeace, WWF et al protesting in Cina and India, climbing up smoke stacks and trying to shu down coal fired power stations and block coal deliveries. They won’t because they are a bunch of chancer cowards who are happy to get a cheap photo opportunity so long as it in the safe comfortable West, they are as hypocritical as Gore…

Philip Peake

As far as I am aware, CN is China.
Which makes those graphs a little suspect since it seemingly treats CN and China as different.

Rob R

Hey, China has a huge coal mining industry of its own. It is not just Australian coal that they burn.

Philip Peake

Plotting CO2 per head of population is really unreasonable.
CO2 output is directly related to economic output, so CO2 should be plotted against per capita GDP.
It looks significantly different if you do so.
It also makes it really clear that what they want is reduced economic output – back to the stone-age for the peasants. Of course, the special people will continue to live in increasing luxury.

I think the RU JP CN category is mis-labelled. CN seems to be Canada, not China, and RU seems to be former Soviet Union, not Russia.

Bob Diaz

Humor me on this one …. Assume that we accept that CO2 is causing horrible AGW and this will result in major destruction of our Earth. Because there’s no difference between CO2 from China, EU, USA, … we would have to admit that ALL increased CO2 adds to the problem. Yet, the UN seems to hold a double standard here on CO2. EU, USA, New Zealand, and Australia are expected to cut emissions, but China is given a free pass to increase emissions beyond the cuts. The chart showing “Growth of CO2 emissions” shows that CO2 output is still increasing. A logical mind would see that the problem is getting worse.
This suggests that controlling total CO2 emissions is NOT the main objective of the UN with so called “climate change”.

Duncan

I always wonder how these charts of CO2 emissions correlates with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, like from the mauna loa record.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
BP’s numbers are rough guesses, at best. I suspect a lot of the numbers are backfit produce a clean line and match other records, like the CO2 concentration record.

Engineer #5

There’s something wrong with the “RU JP CN” label. CN is the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China, and they clearly have their own data series in these charts. Perhaps a klutzy abbreviation of Canada?

Jimbo

Please remember that co2 is a trace gas and man has increased it by a trace amount. Co2 is a greenhouse gas that has already done most of the warming that it can by itself. The rest falls on the AGW theory of positive feedback which has gone AWOL in the last 15 odd years.
From a geologic perspective the Earth is co2 impoverished. We have had 10 x higher levels in the past. No need to panic. The IPCC states that evidence for runaway warming is not supported in the climate literature.

Jimbo

I should have said:
The IPCC states that claims for runaway warming is not supported in the climate literature.

Lank lies pies

I’d like to see another pie chart showing total atmospheric CO2 and ’emitted’ CO2.

clipe

Nick Stokes says:
November 23, 2012 at 4:22 pm
I think the RU JP CN category is mis-labelled. CN seems to be Canada, not China, and RU seems to be former Soviet Union, not Russia.
RU = The greatly diminished Russian Federation. Russia.
CN might be China,Hong Kong S.A.R.?

AntonyIndia

Can everybody now see that lumping India with China regarding CO2 totally is misleading? It is lazy propaganda: measured facts count not mental projections.

highflight56433

nc says:
November 23, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Ok, fine. How does this compare with natural c02?
CO2 = CO2 🙂
+3.0 × 10^12 tonnes Total CO2 in atmosphere? You can do the %

Henry Clark

The majority of living expenses correspond to relatively physical goods: houses or apartments, food, fuel, electricity, etc. Most of those tend to have CO2 emitted in their production in practice today. Although less per capita so far since relative to their large population, China’s strongly rising CO2 emissions provide a striking demonstration of their true and rising economic power. (And they aren’t communist anymore in the stereotypical meaning, by now combining a government which is less purely service-sector than Western governments in emphasis with a corporate income tax rate actually much lower than that of the Europe and the U.S.; in tax rate terms, they are significantly more capitalistic than Europe).
In contrast, much of the components of GDP counted from services and government are often skewed to misleading at best. For instance, as a thought experiment, if I were pay my neighbor $100 to mow my lawn, and he paid me $100 to mow his lawn, GDP would go up by the corresponding amount with our rise in incomes (despite our rise in expenses as well) compared to if we each mowed our own lawn, yet really that is just an illusion with regard to real prosperity (not like more physical production). As another example, when women moved into the workforce after the 1960s, not all but a portion of the gain in GDP in official statistics was overstated when, for example, a daycare worker’s services are counted in GDP but a mother raising a kid directly was not. Government spending counts as adding to GDP even if, for instance, supporting very extreme numbers of individuals studying some of the less-useful humanities subjects in college, despite how some majors are of no greater efficiency relative to practical applications than spending time studying computer games by playing them. In fact, the definition of and emphasis on GDP as a common metric seems to reflect the biases of macroeconomists being primarily employed by governments and universities (not entirely unlike the bias in climatology).
The root of prosperity is how much physical production is produced per capita. Even such as a large magnitude of international trade between large countries depends primarily on physical items going both ways in the end, even if temporarily large amounts of borrowing and debt financing have been possible. The U.S. has the advantage so far of the legacy of the past, prior infrastructure built up over decades, yet in new production is not so impressive compared to China.
However, the boom in fracking and U.S. fuel production recently is one of the few major net increases to U.S. physical production per capita recently, so preventing the CAGW movement from crippling it will be particularly important — for as much as they may assume GDP from other sources like extra lawyers, bureaucrats, and so on in a so-called “postindustrial” economy is substitutable, actually it isn’t, not for real economic prosperity.

clipe
royfomr

Ok we have a hockey-stick again but this time of Chinese origin. Let’s just do what Mike the Mann did with the upside-down Tiljander stuff to ‘prove’ AGW.
Let’s just invert what happened at Tiananmen Square to rigourously rebut ‘false’ claims that the ‘West is still the best!’
PS- Gotta admit that I think the Chinese are doing exactly the right thing by increasing their nations energy output. Good on you guys and gals. Just wish that our leaders were as clever as yours!

We has some wag on the radio here in Canada the other day talking about this growth in CO2 and so on. He had to admit Canada’s contribution is almost insignificant but we need to show leadership. Bull! We need to be as efficient as is practical and reasonably possible.

highflight56433

If I am reading the total CO2 released chart correctly, then there is about 1.13% of CO2 attributed to humans. 34,000,000,000 / 3.0 x 10^12 That probably does not count the exhale of 8 billion souls and the exhale of all the meat they raise to eat before they eat it. Then there is all the water vapor we exhale, and “Blazing Saddles.”

Louis

CO2 output by the USA has been fairly flat lately, just like global temperatures. Average world temperatures have not responded to increasing CO2 output by China. How can warmists explain this contradiction? Could it be that 2% of the world’s surface area really does drive climate change? Perhaps only CO2 emitted by the US is “dirty”, and the rest of the world emits “clean” CO2. /SARC

highflight56433

Henry Clark says:
November 23, 2012 at 5:14 pm
“Although less per capita so far since relative to their large population, China’s strongly rising CO2 emissions provide a striking demonstration of their true and rising economic power.”
Yes, all while the west plays the guilt game..shame on us for being successful and…oh we must save the planet. The Chinese invented capitalism. We choke it.
“The U.S. has the advantage so far of the legacy of the past, prior infrastructure built up over decades, yet in new production is not so impressive compared to China. ”
The Chinese are not burdened with the EPA and other hostile agencies that stymy their economy and inflate costs to the point of not being competitive.

highflight56433

Louis says:
November 23, 2012 at 5:36 pm
“CO2 output by the USA has been fairly flat lately, just like global temperatures.”
…and the economies of EU and US are also flat and in decline. less production, less energy demand, less CO2 produced, less consumption…less….less…zip…zap…gone.

geran

When a tree takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, much of the carbon is transformed by the tree into wood (cellulose). When that wood is used to make furniture, or used in home construction, then that same carbon continues to be “imprisoned” (sequestered).
For me, this simple process raises a lot of questions: How much carbon imprisonment is going on “right under our noses”? Who is investigating furniture hoarding?
And, I didn’t even mention the carbon being hidden in landfills.
FREE the CARBON!!!!

clipe says: November 23, 2012 at 4:54 pm
“CN might be China,Hong Kong S.A.R.?”

No, I checked from the BP data. They have added HK etc into China. The 2011 emission fig for JP+RU+CN is the total for Japan + SU + Canada.

Crispin in Waterloo

If 0.35% of the ice in the world was melted, it would absorb all the CO2 emitted in 2011. As at least half of it already disappears down various rabbit holes, it would take 0.175% to sop up the rest That also means that if the current rate were to continue (which is impossible as the resources do not exist to do so) it would take 570 years to emit more CO2 that would be absorbed by melting ice. If the catastrophists are correct and all the ice melted, the CO2 level would not rise higher than the present 392 ppm even if we continue to emit 33.6 billion tons per year for the next half-millenium. Hmm… Maybe water plays a more important role in stabilising the CO2 level that has been thought.

Baa Humbug

Rosco asked why Australia and New Zealand have been lumped in with the EU.
I’m guessing it’s because the carbon trading schemes of these countries have been linked together recently.

Katherine

One very important CO2 graph seems to be missing. You can find it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/

davidmhoffer

Katherine says:
November 23, 2012 at 8:24 pm
One very important CO2 graph seems to be missing. You can find it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK, now THAT is hilarious.

u.k.(us)

Nick Stokes says:
November 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm
clipe says: November 23, 2012 at 4:54 pm
“CN might be China,Hong Kong S.A.R.?”
No, I checked from the BP data. They have added HK etc into China. The 2011 emission fig for JP+RU+CN is the total for Japan + SU + Canada.
=======================
Glad that is cleared up.
Does this, in any way, relieve one of the onus of CFL bulbs ?
It is a burden.

RoHa

Now I’m confused. Can I breathe out or not?

John F. Hultquist

Bob Diaz says:
November 23, 2012 at 4:24 pm
“ . . . the UN seems to hold a double standard . . .

Some months ago on P. Gosselin’s NoTricksZone there was a post about the writing of the Kyoto treaty (I can’t at the moment find it). There are indications that the German “Greens” incorporate a lot of politics from the former East Germany and that much of the treaty text was written by these folks. One of the ideas was to have a treaty that would constrain most “western” countries (read USA) and make them pay and transfer wealth and technology to less-well-off societies. Not being able to find the post I wanted, I found a short related comment. Here:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/german_kyoto_protocol_hoax.htm
As the UN is not a person, one should not give it attributes of a person. Find the people responsible and see who benefits (follow the money). You might also look at UN Agenda 21. Some folks do not like liberty and free people – they want control.
Here is a scary thought. On E. M. Smith’s site a comment included
My theory is, your opinion of your govt and its minions will never be higher than it is today. [John Robertson]
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/bill-nye-the-science-fruit-loop/

Brad

2 things:
1) what took you so long to focus on this
2) China is just getting started, as their rate of growth and income increases then the carbon they produce explodes.

Note the sharp decline in Russian CO2 emissions after 1991. What declined at an even faster rate was aerosol emissions as heavily polluting Soviet era industry was shut down and, in part, replaced with modern much less polluting replacements.

Mike

beesaman says:
“Now lets see Greenpeace, WWF et al protesting in China and India, climbing up smoke stacks and trying to shu down coal fired power stations and block coal deliveries.”
You are right they wouldn’t dare, but Greenpeace and WWF also know they will never be able to shake down the Chinese like they do so easily in the US, UK, EU and Australian government. Kinda of funny really the Chinese government is doing to these ecotards what you would hope would happen in any real democracy – stand up to the green mafia. Hat’s off to the Chinese for giving the two fingers to these liberal ecotards.

This graph is perhaps a good proxy for economic success.