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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.