From the University of East Anglia home of Climatgate and Phil Jones. Fortunately, we already covered this at WUWT graphically as shown below:
This graph and subsequent story shows just how well the Kyoto protocol has succeeded, which is to say, it didn’t. Meanwhile, blabbing climate activists at Doha try to salvage some new agreement as if that will work either.
UEA research shows record high for global carbon emissions
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 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 2.6 per cent rise projected for 2012 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 58 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol.
This latest analysis by the Global Carbon Project is published today in the journal Nature Climate Change with full data released simultaneously by the journal Earth System Science Data Discussions.
It shows the biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (28 per cent), the United States (16 per cent), the European Union (11 per cent), and India (7 per cent).
Emissions in China and India grew by 9.9 and 7.5 per cent in 2011, while those of the United States and the European Union decreased by 1.8 and 2.8 per cent.
Emissions per person in China of 6.6 tonnes of CO2 were nearly as high as those of the European Union (7.3), but still below the 17.2 tonnes of carbon used in the United States. Emissions in India were lower at 1.8 tonnes of carbon per person.
Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at UEA, led the publication of the data. She said: “These latest figures come amidst climate talks in Doha. But with emissions continuing to grow, it’s as if no-one is listening to the entire scientific community.”
The 2012 rise further opens the gap between real-world emissions and those required to keep global warming below the international target of two degrees.
“I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan,” added Prof Corinne Le Quéré.
The analysis published in Nature Climate Change shows significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep two degrees as a feasible goal.
It shows previous energy transitions in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, and the UK have led to emission reductions as high as 5 per cent each year over decade-long periods, even without climate policy.
Lead author Dr Glen Peters, of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said: “Scaling up similar energy transitions across more countries can kick-start global mitigation with low costs. To deepen and sustain these energy transitions in a broad range of countries requires aggressive policy drivers.”
Co-author Dr Charlie Wilson, of the Tyndall Centre at UEA, added: “Public policies and institutions have a central role to play in supporting the widespread deployment of low carbon and efficient energy-using technologies, and in supporting innovation efforts”.
Emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added 10 per cent to the emissions from burning fossil fuels. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached 391 parts per million (ppm) at the end of 2011.
These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society. These other analyses come from the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Bank, the European Environment Agency, and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The December edition of Nature Climate Change contains three more research papers from Tyndall Centre authors: ‘Equity and state representations in climate negotiations’ by Heike Schroeder of UEA; ‘Changing Social Contracts in Climate Change Adaptation’ with Irene Lorenzoni and Tara Quinn of UEA; and ‘Proportionate adaptation’ by Jim Hall at Oxford University and colleagues from the Tyndall Centres at Southampton University, Cardiff and UEA.
‘The mitigation challenge to stay below two degrees’ by G.P. Peters, R.M. Andrew, T. Boden, J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, G. Marland, M.R. Raupach, C. Wilson is published online by Nature Climate Change. http://bit.ly/Qpt3ub (online from Dec 2, 2012, 1800 GMT).
Full details of the methods and data used are presented in: ‘The Global Carbon Budget 1959’ by C. Le Quéré, R. J. Andres, T. Boden, T. Conway, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, G. Marland, G. P. Peters, G. van der Werf, A. Ahlström, R. M. Andrew, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, S. C. Doney, C. Enright, P. Friedlingstein, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, C. Jourdain, E. Kato, R. Keeling, K. Klein Goldewijk, S. Levis, P. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, M. Raupach, J. Schwinger, S. Sitch, B. D. Stocker, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle and N. Zeng, Earth System Science Data Discussions. http://bit.ly/UY8GTQ (online from Dec 2, 2012! , 1800 GMT).
I know that at the recent UN World Tobacco FCTC Conference in Korea they threw the press and public out so they could conduct their main discussions on things like a World Tax in secret. Do they do that for the UN Climate conferences as well? If they do, are there enough leaks that the substance of what’s covered/decided becomes known?
😕
MJM
So, if the international agreements are supposedly not going to work, what is the appropriate method or mechanism to ensure a ramp down in CO2 emissions as per the National Academy of Sciences?
Quote:
“It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes… The plants of the world thank these strange humans that say they believe in ecology but do everything they can to suffocate said plants.
It really is an upsidedown world.
These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society. Balderdash. Urgency? We’ve seen 16 years without an increase in global temperatures and they go on about “serious impacts” and “high costs”. The fact that these statements are from the UN and their sycophants explains everything.
The urgency is that if left to itself, the current situation will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all this scaremongering was null and void, and with it the reputation of the UN.
Thank you China. The World’s plant life thanks you ! 🙂
“I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan,” added Prof Corinne Le Quéré.
“Public policies and institutions have a central role to play in supporting the widespread deployment…”
“These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society.”
Beating the agenda drum…Fortunately, the groaning depression brought on by the ever growing threat of CAGW and the lagging collection of C/CO2 tax is a highly treatable condition; be sure to take your Zoloft with low carbon food or low carbon fat free milk.
Please, let us see the natural sources for CO2 in the pie-chart as well.
RockyRoad says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Well said.
That pie chart is a rather cunning piece of propaganda by the Tyndall Centre For Climate Change all by itself. New better improved 3D pie chart that cleverly distorts visible areas to make it impossible for the prole to compare them visually.
To be honest its not really fair to fault China. The US has had per person levels around 17 tons for along time. Correct me if im wrong but China is still only around 6 tons Co2 per person. There are alot more pressing issues to the WEST than haggling over these top 10 lists. Get ur finances and internal strife in order before worrrring about what may happen 2100. Just my opinion.
Actually it had the outcome that was to be expected – carbon intensive production like the making of Solar Cells shifted to areas not affected.
“Meanwhile, blabbing climate activists at Doha try to salvage some new agreement as if that will work either.”
Define “work.” If by “work,” you mean result in an Űbergovernment, then it may work. 0bama would sign the sovereignty of the US over to such a body (collectivist, unelected, unaccountable, permanent, and without checks and balances) in a heartbeat.
Her name was written as Quere on british TV. They couldn’t do the éé. Quere that?
Luckily the world will end on the 21st an we won’t have to implement a radical plan ( to do what? ) like the Quere Professor is suggesting. These MORONS are breeding and coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches!!!
“It shows previous energy transitions in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, and the UK have led to emission reductions as high as 5 per cent each year over decade-long periods, even without climate policy.”
“Transitions” in France and UK were based on large-scale conversion to nuclear power. The “transition” in Sweden was based on a mix of nuclear and hydro power and in Denmark on importing Swedish hydro/nuclear power. I don’t know about Belgium, but I strongly suspect that they import french nuclear power.
Niels – excellent suggestion. One pie chart could have total carbon showing a segment of human emissions, and a second one could be as above.
Interesting a European Comission report had Chinese emissions near level with the EU..
7.2 tonnes per capita vs EU’s 7.5 tonnnes per capita
“Trends in Global CO2 emissions 2012 report”
edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
from this website: http://www.edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu
to quote the summary:
“In 2011, China’s average per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased by 9% to 7.2 tonnes CO2. Taking into account an uncertainty margin of 10%, this is similar to the per capita
emissions in the European Union of 7.5 tonnes in 2011, theyear in which the European Union saw a decrease in emissions of 3%. China, the world’s most populous country, is now well within the 6 to 19 tonnes/person range spanned by the major industrialised countries.”
this report is well worth a read.
Wasn’t the goal of kyoto to reduce emissions back to 2000 levels or 1990 levels or something in another 7 years or something? Since china has doubled its emissions and other countries nearlu as much doesn’t that mean we are missing the target by an awfully lot? I don’t want to seem pessimistic but it does seem unattainable? Extreme Sarcasm.
the whole AGW scam has been brilliant success for China!
In the last 10 to 14 years, the trend of CO2 in the atmosphere has started to decelerate – it is now slightly less than linear (versus the slightly exponential trend it was before).
Its hard to be sure since there is still some variability (it increases faster in warmer years and not as much as colder years), but the basic data is less than a linear rate now – the increase is 2.05 ppm per year which is decelerating at -0.002 ppm / year / year.
The natural Carbon sinks are absorbing an increasing proportion of our emissions each year so although our emissions are growing every year, this is not translating in accelerated CO2 growth.
I think we industrialized CO2ers contribute just under 5% of the .0381% CO2 total. so looking at the pie chart I see India with 5%, that would be mankind’s contribution healthy plant life and to the total pie; approximately speaking from a visual perspective and of course from a visual perspective .0381% of the atmosphere is insignificant unless you are a tree or other cellulose producing gizmoyte.
Barry Woods says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm
…………..
Barry that link does not work, but here is a working one with the emissions:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2011
One can switch from pro head to total emissions:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2011
The pie chart does distort a lot and makes wrong impression blaming whoever is placed in front.
the difference is shown even bigger here between the first and the second.
China 9.7
USA 5.4
EU 27 3.8
India 2.0
Russia 1.8
Japan 1.2
South Korea 0.6
Canada 0.6
Indonesia 0.5
It’s clear that, based on the precautionary principle, the only viable solution is for the UN to authorise the US to nuke all chinese dirty power stations for the good of the planet.
Do I really need to add a /sarc tag ?
At least here in Australia, these people know how to play the media cycle. It is Monday morning, Parliament has finished for the year, and we about to enter the media ‘silly season’.The ABC website, (complete with backlit steam emissions) and the Fairfax press are hyperventilating this morning about this.
I was particularly taken by
“Technically still possible” ?? ….please explain.
Chris Edwards says:
“the whole AGW scam has been brilliant success for China!”
I wonder what percentage of their massive CO2 increase is due to the manufacture of wind and solar devices?
And what percentage due to manufacturing moving to China ,out of area that have installed those device?
Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at UEA, led the publication of the data. She said: “These latest figures come amidst climate talks in Doha. But with emissions continuing to grow, it’s as if no-one is listening to the entire scientific community.”
_______________________________________
Correct, we are listening to the DATA!
Niels says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Please, let us see the natural sources for CO2 in the pie-chart as well.
________________________________
If they did that you would not be able to read the chart. Humans account for ~ 3% so the wedge would be smaller that India’s.
Besides how can you scare people with a tiny wedge?
I keep thinking, the weak and I mean [really] weak correlation between the flattening of “global temperatures” and Asian co2 emissions could get traction with the panic stricken and the western media. Asian CO2 has equaled Western co2 as the temps flatlined and as they begun to emit more than us the temps look like they are falling.
Using the team logic, Asian CO2 emissions cause cooling, its irrefutable, by their concept of science.
Auto-spellcheck-correction programmes suck, really.
Keith Minto says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“Technically still possible” ?? ….please explain.
________________________________________
Convert to 100% nuclear power.
Japan had an interesting concept to power cargo ships with mini Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They were being called Mini Fujis.
Physically small high power to weight reactors are important to get excellent high levels of performance out of small ships – MSRs can be successfully built in sizes as small as 2 MW and this permits use in even quite small Navy ships.
A proof-of-concept fluoride reactor was built and operated in 1954 at Oak Ridge. It was called the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE), and it demonstrated that fluoride reactors had the chemical and nuclear stability that Briant and his colleagues had predicted. After the success of the ARE, the fluoride reactor was baselined for the nuclear aircraft project, but the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles led to cancellation of the nuclear aircraft in 1960.
A U.S. company says it is getting closer to putting prototype electric cars on the road that will be powered by the heavy-metal thorium.
Thorium makes more sense than a carbon tax does.
I’m still waiting for the CO2 warming activists to find a place to live without using any energy or products made from carbon based materials. Heck, there must be enough of them that they alone could solve the problem.
Gail Combs says:
December 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Thanks, Interesting links you provided.
I was amused at the pre-school level of science that assumes that CO2 and CO2 only, provides the mechanism for planetary temperature regulation, up and down. This is the level of science that they think will sway politicians and lawyers who hope to become politicians, and, so far, this plan seems to be working.
However, I am just beginning to sense a touch of weariness in the this Climate nonsense, like the old Aesop fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf, signs of message overkill are creeping in. The image of ‘dirty’ steam that I referred to, has gone from the ABC article and the SMH on its front page titles its article “It’s the end of the world as we know it”.
There may be hope yet for main stream journalism.
The Kyoto treaty did exactly as designed. Kyoto redistributed global growth away from the countries that were reducing pollution to the worst offenders who proceeded to pollute more. Thus we have dozens of new dirty coal electricity generating stations every year and closings of the best examples.
Indeed! The “transition” in Sweden begun in the 1970’s … Cheap (and clean) energy …, at least used to be before the Nordic governments helped the power companies by creating a oligopoly market. Political argument: cheaper electicity. Reality: more expensive …
Also, today eco terrorists and greedy fortune seekers are helping to make this even worse! They are claiming that reduced emissions by moving into renewable resources in Sweden would make a difference … Truth is that it can only evolve in the wrong direction … Reducing already low emission levels in Sweden, results in a non measurable level differences on a global scale … Nevertheless, measuring (global) emission levels are basically a computer product, like global temperatures and sea levels …? (Viritual Reality)
In Sweden, companies involved in wind industry are starting to go belly up due to actual and previous ignored costs involved … Bad for municipals that wasted tax money into projects that was doomed long before leaving the construction stage …
One of the scientists on that team has told Australian media:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/15534867/aust-scientist-warns-of-growing-emissions/
[SNIP – chemtrails]
Gee, Greenpeace et al had me believing that our Oil Sands were the leading producer of carbon (dioxide?) on the planet. That is a relief.
What is “CN” in that pie chart? CN usually means China. Should it be CA?
All that carbon dioxide and there doesn’t seem to be any negative impacts. So far. I still believe we are getting close to peak carbon dioxide emissions. The situation always looks good near the top.
What do the WUWT regulars think are the limits of CO2 concentration which would be acceptable? I mean, is there a level at which it will have a detrimental effect and if so then what is that level?
That pie chart reminds me of the Steve Jobs pie chart trick:
“MacWorld’s iPhone Pie Chart: Perspective Trick Makes 19.5% Look Bigger Than 21.2%”
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/02/macworlds-iphon/
Struggling to find the exact amount of CO2-e that is predicted to lead to a 2 degree rise. Is that the 1990 base year in Kyoto? Lots of papers don’t even bother to refer to these figures any more. Please can anybody help?
Jesse G. says:
I’m still waiting for the CO2 warming activists to find a place to live without using any energy or products made from carbon based materials.
I suspect being carbon based lifeforms is likely to be the most difficult problem 😉
And still the temp refuses to rise!
What is the world coming to when the facts won’t follow the dream (model)?
James Bull
How do they measure it?
Very disappointed to see this grossly distorted graphic used once again in WUWT. I pointed out it’s failings on 23 November. Most offset 3D pie charts are distorting. I am used to poor presentation and distortion from Warmists, I expect better from WUWT.
Good for China!
If you need to develop then cheap reliable energy is vital. Fossil fuels provide this.
The Chinese are now probably the biggest money lenders in the world, if not it wont be long before we are all endebted to them.
When our economies are destroyed by the greens and do gooders, how can the interest on loans to China be paid back? What will we all do when they come knocking on the door demanding their loan repayments ?
Michael R says:
December 2, 2012 at 4:54 pm
One of the scientists on that team has told Australian media:…..
“If you look at what’s has happened over the last year and this year and what has happened overall over the last 10 years, we are now following perfectly on track of the emissions path”
A1F1(The doomsday path) and A1B(not the best path, but close) follow similar tracks in the early years. The reality is that China’s growth in coal consumption is slowing dramatically as their hydro,wind and nuclear resources being to come on line. Nuclear and Hydro have long construction lead times, and for wind to be ‘cost effective’ it needs to be load balanced by hydro.
Having said that…coal burning for electricity consumption is only about half of china’s coal consumption, they’ve got one heck of a big building boom going on and steel and cement account for a large fraction of their coal consumption. Building booms always end, especially in a country where population growth is pretty close to being over.
/sarc We urgently need a global treaty to limit emissions because as soon as the Chinese building boom ends it will be clear to all that no such treaty is required.
Actually Kyoto has succeeded magnificently. It was written by Maurice Strong acting as agent for China. His purpose was to suppress the rest of the world so China could expand without hindrance. Mission accomplished.
Record high however, probably near the peak. Peak population, peak CO2, peak temperature (at least within this waning interglacial) but not peak oil. In any case, here comes a long downhill slide down the razor blade of life, so to speak. Age of Migrations II.
polistra:
Exactly. Not only was China a direct beneficiary, but so were the carbon credit exchanges. Unfortunately, it also revealed an inconvenient truth. Carbon emissions are not an imminent threat. Neither is global warming, AGCC, climate change, nor any other marketable event.
Adam says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:12 pm
What do the WUWT regulars think are the limits of CO2 concentration which would be acceptable? I mean, is there a level at which it will have a detrimental effect and if so then what is that level?
Adam, when some activist says the west is guilty for “polluting” the globe with CO2 since about 150 years, the activist conveniently for his ideology forgets to say that the increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm (current level) is “guilty” for the existence of about 1/3 of the current biosphere.
“The uptake of carbon by vegetation and soil, that is the terrestrial productivity during the ice age, was only about 40 petagrams of carbon per year and thus much smaller: roughly one third of present-day terrestrial productivity and roughly half of pre-industrial productivity.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/carbon-on-the-uptake/#comment-803505
So without this increase 1/3 of the biosphere would dissapear and 2-3 billion of people would die of famine.
And the activists keep talking of guilt and pollution.
Maybe something like 750 ppm would be a good target.
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PlantPPM2.jpg
Not sure if we would ever be able to achieve this.
If we would be seriously talking of reducing CO2 then nuclear is the immediate and secure solution. Nuclear can be further improved, nuclear waste re-used, nuclear spill cleaned -up.
In the moment when uranium could be extracted from ocean, nuclear spill could be also cleaned-up effectively. Maybe thorium would be a more secure and better way.
Green-energy = wasting resources for unicorn dreams.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/britain%27s-mad-biomass-dash.aspx
At current technology energy storage is the issue – pumping reservoirs do have a 66% efficiency and reached for 0,1% capacity, wind is delivering energy in average about 20% of time variable with the cube of wind speed. Solar is as variable as wind and not complementary. Both need backup. Bio-ethanol consumes real diesel for worst quality ethanol. Waste+waste+waste+polluting landscape+destroying habitat+raising grid instability+reducing food production. Did I forgot anything?
So yes, we could do studies what would 500 or 750 or even 1000 ppm mean, if any is reacheable, if there are any consequences, good or bad + invest for science, for real research + have honest debates.
Actually not sure we can ever achieve 500 ppm, wonder how a jungle with 500-600 ppm CO2 would look like?
“Carbon emissions are ‘too high’ to curb climate change”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20556703
“It is increasingly unlikely that global warming will be kept below an increase of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, a study suggests.”
There digging a big hole for themselves.
This pie chart looks like it was created by a political junk scientist. Not only does the perspective visually distort the data, but the scrambling of the emitters by ranking is an odd touch. The combination suggests to the casual observer that Japan is the 2nd highest emitter, in front of US & EU.
[note: There are more graphs in the link – mod]
What does the chart look like if you examine carbon dioxide emissions per capita?
@jakediamond
if you type in emissions per capita by nations into Google you will find the information you want, though its hard to believe some of the numbers are accurate.
You can draw your own conclusions from this, but a careful examination reveals that China now has only slightly smaller emissions per capita than Europe (as a whole), whilst countries like Australia and The US lead the pack – naughty Australians, perhaps we should stop supplying the world with the commodities they demand. Not sure why the US is so big, its hard to believe that it’s just a profligate lifestyle – the UK by comparison is less than half and Canada is similar to the US, which would suggest that population density has a lot to do with it.
I posted my question as an exercise for the WUWTites. It’s amusing and instructive to see how deep the denial is here. For example, the statement “perhaps we should stop supplying the world with the commodities they demand” conveniently ignores the FACT that the United States exports less than the EU, China and Germany yet produces more carbon dioxide per capita. (Australia doesn’t make the top 20 in terms of exports.) Your comment also overlooks the FACT that the United States is a net importer.
By the way, your speculation about “population density” is pure nonsense. Examining the carbon dioxide emissions per capita for countries with similar population densities easily shows that your theory is contradicted by the data.
Does it export less commodities? (E.g., coal and timber.)
The comparison should be to developed countries with temperate climates in order to make it apples-to-apples.
Our car owners probably drive twice the miles per year that Europeans do, because we’re more spread out and commute further to work, being more suburbanized. (A semi-famous saying goes, “The difference between an American and a European is that to an American, 100 miles is a short distance and 100 years is a long time.”)
Other contributors to our higher energy use are our suburbanized population and its large houses, which ups our heating and air conditioning costs. We also have more extreme winters and summers (the “continental” weather pattern) than Western Europe, which is closer on average to the moderating effect of sea breezes from the west, which also ups our heating and cooling energy consumption.
Roger –
The United States emits more than twice as much carbon dioxide per capita as the EU. Your speculative explanation doesn’t account for the magnitude of this difference.
In the last 50 years C02 levels have increased about 100PPM. Man is only responsible for about 3% of that or 3PPM, so what is all the excitement about?
“It’s as if no one is listening to the scientific community.”
It’s the sub-community you misidentify as the whole thing which is being (rightfully) disregarded by all with skin in the game. And it will only get worse from here on in. Emigrate now, avoid the rush.