Greenpeace co-founder calls out Paris Climate Accord with $100,000 bet

Via PRWeb, Friday, Feb 19th:

Dr. Patrick Moore Offers $100,000 Wager on Global CO2 Emissions

Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD ecologist and President of Ecosense Environmental Inc. has offered a bet of US$100,000 that global CO2 emissions will be higher in the year 2025 than they were in 2015. His offer was made a month ago to his nearly 10,000 followers on Twitter (@EcoSenseNow) and was re-tweeted to tens of thousands more, yet no one has taken the wager.

“The warmists claim that 97 percent of climate scientists believe that human CO2 emissions will cause dangerous climate change,” Dr. Moore stated. “The UN Paris climate summit was hailed as ‘an historic agreement that is our best chance save the planet’. If that is so then surely they believe CO2 emissions will come down during the next ten years, as pledged by all the countries attending the meeting. Yet no one seems willing to put their money where their rhetoric is.”

In recent years fossil fuel use and attendant CO2 emissions have increased dramatically, especially in China and India, yet satellite and weather balloon data show little or no additional warming over the past 20 years.

Dr. Moore denies claims that CO2 is a pollutant and is skeptical that it will cause much warming of the climate. The Earth’s climate has warmed slightly over the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age around 1700. “Humans did not cause the end of the Little Ice Age, and I do not believe human emissions of CO2 are the cause of the continued slight warming over the past 50 years,” said Dr. Moore. “But surely the people who do believe in catastrophic global warming have faith that world governments will heed their warning, as expressed in the Paris Agreement. Or are they just playing a game with the world?”

“In fact CO2 is one of the most important foods for life on Earth,” Dr. Moore continued. “If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, this would be a dead planet, as plants require CO2 to exist, and animals require plants to exist. It has been clearly demonstrated that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing a ‘greening of the Earth’, especially in arid regions such as the Sahel in sub-Saharan Africa.”

Dr. Moore was on the crew of the first Greenpeace campaign against US H-Bomb testing in Alaska in 1971 and then served for 15 years in the top committee as Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization. He departed in 1986 over policy differences.

Today Dr. Moore is the President of Ecosense Environmental Inc., Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and a director of the CO2 Coalition, which will hold its inaugural public meeting at the Princeton Club in New York City March 29.

Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/02/prweb13217588.htm

107 thoughts on “Greenpeace co-founder calls out Paris Climate Accord with $100,000 bet

  1. “Dr. Moore REFUTES claims that CO2 is a pollutant and KNOWS IT WILLNOTcause much warming of the climate. ”

    There – fixed the bias of the reporter.

      • “Patrick Moore…. Skeptics need a better spokesperson than him.”

        He’s not a spokesperson, just a PhD ecologist that hasn’t allowed his emotions to dictate his stance on AGW. Us skeptics don’t need perceived authority figures to parrot and hide behind, instead we rely on logic, reason, and science. The same can’t be said for the emotional agenda driven anti-human CAGW lot.

    • I personally saw a salesman drink tank mix glyphosate ten years ago. I do not recommend this, and this was before a bunch of surfactants (which are far more dangerous) were added to standard roundup, but he seems to be doing just fine.

      Ditch the hysteria and dig into the science. Learn some chemistry…

    • Having had a pressurized tank of glyphosate blow up in my hands (only about 2-5 PSI on a lawn sprayer) getting a good dose in my eyes, nose, mouth and a general shower bath, I can honestly say that 16 years later, I have had no ill effects from the experience except to inspect my tools much more carefully.
      The spot is still visible on the lawn however.
      Time to come up with another straw man to be your big bad boogy man.

    • I know another of those Green Peace guys, he served for 15 years in the top committee at Greenpeace, helping it grow into the world’s largest environmental activist organization. Can’t believe a thing he says.

      In case you don’t get it, yes that is sarcasm, which is a reasonable response to vacuous Ad hom.

    • Glyphosate was first synthesized in 1950 by Swiss chemist Henry Martin, who worked for the Swiss company Cilag. The work was never published.[13]:1 Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in 1964 as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper and zinc.[14]

      Hard to argue that something patented as a chelator is poisonous to humans, unless you drink enough to lead to mineral deficiencies. Even water is poisonous if you drink enough of it.

      • Chelation is actually the *recommended* medical treatment for acute poisoning by soluble heavy metals – i.e. lead or mercury or copper salts..

      • May not be the glyphosate as much as the “inert” ingredient polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA). Anyway these things tend to be “statistical”, meaning that just because one person is not affected doesn’t mean that the next wouldn’t be (genetic differences). And few unknown effect substances should be considered “safe” with fetal development because of cell division sensitivity.
        “One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing. Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers aren’t required to publicly disclose them.Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don’t harm pests as “inert,” she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren’t necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless – they simply don’t kill insects or weeds. Monsanto scientists argue that cells in Seralini’s study were exposed to unnaturally high levels of the chemicals. “It’s very unlike anything you’d see in real-world exposure. People’s cells are not bathed in these things,” said Donna Farmer, another toxicologist at Monsanto.
        Seralini’s team, however, did study multiple concentrations of Roundup. These ranged from the typical agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.”
        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

      • All this discussion of Glyphosate reminded me of one of my weekend garden chores. Spray the grass and weeds in the wood chipping at the front of the house. Mission accomplished. Now back to reading the rest of the comments…

    • Every since Rachael Carson and Barry Commoner every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to think that their “health food Svengalis” recommendations on chemical ingestion is scientifically unquestionable. How did that happen? Otherwise seemingly reasonable people get all fired up in obsessive compulsive ways when talking about their diet and what it takes to provide that. Modern humans in developed countries or have access to those amenities even from underdeveloped countries are bigger, stronger, more healthy and longer lived than ever in the history of the human race. The results are in. If we could get people to obsess on avoiding too much sugar and limiting their caloric intake to correspond to their physical activity 90% of “affluence induced” health problems would go away.

      • There’s a party for our granddaughter at our house tomorrow. Menu planning was quite difficult for my wife. Among the various party goers there are allergies to eggs, corn, nuts, gluten, and dairy. When I was growing up, in the 40s and 50s, I never knew or heard of anyone with any kind of allergy. I guess they must have all died after attending their first party. IMO, subsequent generations have been coddled too much in aseptic environments.

    • In reply to K.Mitchell

      You are confusing an argument or a debate which can be won by appealing to authority, by manipulating data, by ignoring analysis results, and so with the correct answer to a scientific puzzle.

      The correct answer to a scientific puzzle is not effected by propaganda, name calling, holding one’s breath, standing on your head, and so on.

      The entire scientific basis of the IPCC reports is incorrect. There is no AGW issue to solve. The majority (95%) of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes and the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 (no less than 75%) is due to warming of the oceans.

      Comments
      The observed change in atmospheric C12/13 ratio is due to an increase in deep earth released CH4 which explains why the change in C12/C13 ratio does not correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The IPCC’s Bern model for CO2 sinks and sources is also a white lie. The key white lie is there is significant mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean which explains why anthropogenic CO2 emissions disappear in roughly to two years and explains Humluum et al’s phase analysis paradox.

      The so called 1 dimensional ‘no feedbacks’ calculation for the estimated warming expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 was purposely done incorrectly (i.e. those doing the calculation understood their ‘error’, the calculation was therefore a ‘white’ lie, not a scientific error). The error was done to create the AGW issue (i.e. there would be no AGW issue if the calculation was done correctly) by:

      1) Freezing the lapse rate for the calculation: The ‘no feedback’ 1 dimensional calculation froze the lapse rate which is equivalent to ignoring or changing the laws of physics. It is a physical fact that hot air rises which causes cold air to fall. An increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric convection which causes a reduction in the lapse rate which reduces the surface warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by a factor of four.

      2) The cult of CAGW did the calculation for a dry atmosphere: In addition to white lie 1, the ‘no feedback’ 1 dimension calculation for the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 did that calculation for a dry atmosphere. As the planet is 70% covered with water it is fact that there is a great deal of water in the atmosphere. As it is a fact that absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap, water vapor reduces the warming due to an increase in atmospheric CO2. A 1986 peer reviewed paper noted this ‘error’. Re-doing the calculation for with a conservatively low minimum estimated water vapor in the atmosphere also reduces the surface warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by a factor of 4.

      As ‘error’ 1 and ‘error’ 2 are additive the 1 dimensional no feedback warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is reduce from 1.2C by a factor of 16 to 0.075C or less than 0.1C.

      As the warming due to the increase in CO2 is logarithmic, roughly 50% of the warming should have occurred already so the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is 0.075C/2 or 0.035C.

      As the planet has warmed roughly 0.8C in the last 150 years, only 0.035C or 5% is attributable to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

      95% of the warming in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle changes. If that assertion is correct the planet will abrupt cool due to the interruption to the solar cycle. In addition to abruptly cooling atmospheric CO2 will fall from 400 ppm to 310 ppm.

      Comment: The so called 3 dimensional general circulation models (GCM) have more than 100 parameters that can be adjusted and hence can give an silly range of answers that has no basis on reality. The more than 100 GCM model parameters are adjusted by ‘tuning’ the model to give the warming that is required to push the cult of CAGW’s paradigm.

      Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. The cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record correlates with solar cycle changes.


      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

      Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”

      …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

      The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
      …As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur. As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2–8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment. Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around….

      …A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). ….

      …Analyses of a pole-to-pole transect of atmospheric CO2 records suggest that changes in atmospheric CO2 are initiated south of the Equator, but probably not far from the Equator, and from there spreads towards the two poles within a year or so (Fig. 13). This observation specifically points towards the oceans at or south of the Equator as an important source area for observed changes in atmospheric CO2. The major release of anthropogene CO2 is taking place at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 12), but the north–south transect investigated show no indication of the main change signal in atmospheric CO2 originating here. The main signal must therefore be caused by something else. A similar conclusion, but based on studies of the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, was reached by Segalstad (1998); Essenhigh (2009).

    • Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Williams GM1, Kroes R, Munro IC.

      “It was concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122

      • Not even going to ask how you know it tastes like s**t, let alone how you know what s**t tastes like. Yuck!

  2. …surely they believe CO2 emissions will come down during the next ten years, as pledged by all the countries attending the meeting. Yet no one seems willing to put their money where their rhetoric is….

    That’s a dangerous bet. Surely the Green Blob is perfectly capable of lowering the CO2 emissions FIGURES, with just a stroke of an adjuster’s pen, and with no concern about what the actual CO2 emissions might be.

    They are all modelled anyway. So the only people who determine what they are are the modellers…

    • China and India each will likely double CO2 emissions over this time frame. Assuming US and Europe don’t drop emissions to zero, the bet is won right there.

      No risk at all IMO.

      • No risk at all IMO.
        ============
        except for the front money, a $100 trillion dollar bet would be equally safe and grab more headlines..

    • Yes, as temperatures fail to live up to alarmist predictions the next data set to suffer Karlisation will be the CO2 emissions. They well claim they have reduced CO2 and that the lack of warming is due COP-OUT-21. Proof that it’s working so we just need to be a bit more “ambitious”.

    • The much lauded agreement Obama made with China states that China will double their emissions up to 2030, and only begin to plateau then

      • They can more than double, and it is not in any way a binding agreement, it was a political stunt. China will do what China wants, even after 2030.

        China has real pollution to deal with, I guarantee you CO2 is way way way down their list of “worries”

    • The historical numbers on co2 are disappearing as we speak. The sinks are currently very large, the largest increase in co2 ppm was in 1998, the following year it was an unbelievable low 0.88 ppm. Further if anybody looks there is a cycle in the co2 record that matches solar and cosmic ray activity.
      I’m sure adjustments will have to be made.

  3. “” It has been clearly demonstrated that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing a ‘greening of the Earth’, especially in arid regions such as the Sahel in sub-Saharan Africa.””

    A more appropriate application of “especially” would be for where CO2 is the limiting factor, ie where there is plenty of water and mineral nutrient. That’s where you see an increase in plant growth that is directly attributable to enhanced CO2, rather than the putative increase in soil moisture ascribed to increased stomatal efficiency.

  4. The good Doctor bets that world wide CO2 emissions will increase over the next 10 years.
    Looks to be a sure thing to me. The easterners, China and India have committed to rapidly increasing their output of CO2 at a rate that, even if the westerner eliminate most of their output the rate of the total will increase. The die is already cast for the next 10 years. sure thing to me…pg

  5. I think bet-offering is one of the best tactics at our disposal. Especially “edgier” bets than this one. For instance, for every year that is hotter than 2015, the skeptic pays; for every year that is not hotter, the warmist pays. Money would be held in escrow in an interest-bearing (hopefully) account in Switzerland–or maybe in Ireland or Iceland. A similar bet could be made regarding Minimum Arctic Ice extent.

    By placing a few million-dollar bets, the Kochs could rattle a few cages.

    There’s have to be an agreement on which organizations statistics to use: probably an average of some would be best.

    • Agree. And I will offer k.mitchell upthread a little one. I will take one of the two contour fields due for rotation from alfalfa to corn or or soy on my Wisconsin farm. And offer it to him free– he gets to keep his yield and sell it. Heck, we will even harvest it for him (so the machines can track yield). Now, we would have used glyphosate, then a no till seed drill behind my diesel tractor. He will have to plow (by horse, since FF are evil), sow by horse or hand, and then hoe the rows three times: in late May (seedlings), Mid June (plant development), then early July (preanthesis aka for corn, tasseling) to control the weeds that glyphosate woild have eliminated. After tasseling, corn doesn’t care so much about weeds except giant palmer amaranth–we have only a little. I will provide free board at the farmhouse, horses, plows, and hoes. NOT non GMO seed. On his own there, since I think he will have to go to Europe to find a decent modern nonGMO hybrid.
      Three serious bets. 1. K. Mitchell declines this generous offer (a rare opportunity to live in whatnis partly an 1880’s pioneer cabin, cook over a wood stove, unplug the evil electric refrig and TV, and even read by kerosene lamps (power outage backups as we are pretty remote) to get back to his idyll of agrarian farming. 2. If he does take my generous offer, he will not be able to survive the rigors. 3. If by some miracle he does stay the coirse physically, his yield will be less than 2/3 of we produced last on those same fields using modern agricultural techology. And he will have proven you cannot feed the world the way he wished and hoped. Sort of like renewables, but with a much sharper cutting reality edge.
      Offer made. Awaiting reply.

      • Ristvan,

        KMitchell is a troll, why would you waste 10 mins writing to a person who clearly has a warmist bent and is here to spread propaganda? KMitchell is a science denier….

        [You cannot sharpen a tool working it against a piece of rubber or a bowl of mush. It is only possible to expand one’s ability, and strengthen one’s capacity by working all of your talents against those who disagree with you. Equally, there are many thousands of new readers who have not heard skeptical arguments against the most common CAGW propaganda. .mod]

      • it would be interesting to alter that offer a tad
        allow machinery
        and yeah finding non GM corn in usa may be hard as its contaminated so much.
        but there is some around i guess
        the problem is your soils will have carryover Bt and roundup in them
        so it negates and real result.
        Id rather pay for a few more gallons of diesel and do more passes on the weeds than pay the insane gmo prices and contractual bindings
        as well as the fert n chem costs on top.
        Ive just bought my second block of land and plan to plant this year
        the selling point for me(and many others) was a 30yr no chem at all used on the land.
        would I grow corn? only for personal eating non gm.
        maize for animal fodder as a specialty treat in a wet spring maybe
        its such a water hungry massive veg output for bugger all real gain protein wise.
        if its not used for biofuels and subsidised..its not even paying for the effort to plant it

    • Hey Roger, last I ‘eard a few of the UK & USA banks needed bailing out too. Why are those banks above approach?

  6. The only way he loses that bet is if there is a fusion breakthrough tomorrow. Even then, with all the regulatory horse implementation by 2025 is dubious.

  7. Well the Paris climate agreement is the old bait and switch.

    The propaganda is that countries agreed to reduce CO2. Sounds good but the reality is they only agreed to slow the rate of CO2 growth if it is in their best interests.

    Even if all countries followed through with all commitments (which won’t happen) Dr Moore still wins the bet.

    • I thought what they agreed to was that they “should” slow the rate of CO2 release. The word “should” replaced “shall” when no one would agree to the latter.

      In other words they agreed that lowering the release of CO2 was a good idea yet one to which they would not commit.

  8. Besides this bet, Dr. Moore might want to consider a side or secondary bet: That by 2025, all members of the staff of Greenpeace, the WWF and other eco-organizations will have completely divested their lives of all dependence on fossil fuels.

    Nine years might seem like plenty of time with which to do this, but it would (I will guess) largely depend on what replacement technologies (if any) are developed and put into commercial use between now and then. Make them put their money where their mouths are.

    • CD

      re: “…staff of Greenpeace, the WWF and other eco-organizations will have completely divested their lives of all dependence on fossil fuels”

      Just asking: what ever happened to the executive Greenpeace dude who was commuting to his Greenpeace job on a (gasp) commercial jet (and at Greenpeace expense)?

  9. There will be no takers because the safer bet is go with the steady income from scare tactics and policy distortion.

    • The latest from Gov. Jerry Brown

      ‘Governors’ Accord For A New Energy Future’, Feb.16, 2016

      Seventeen governors signed. A group of New England governors and governors along the Canadian border where power line ties can be located. California has a power transmission tie with Mexico. Canada and Mexico are sources of clean renewable power for the U.S. And New England needs clean power.

      No mention of global warming or climate change in this.Offered as a means to reduce CO2.

      This U.S. affair continues in the wake of COP21 despite the fact that this is not necessary. As far as Brown is concerned CO2 is a settled issue.

      http://www.governorsnewenergyfuture.org/the-accord

      Policy distortion!

  10. No additional warming in the past 20 years? The link does not claim quite that much. The longest I have heard so far for non-warming linear trend in any global temperature dataset is 18 years 9 months.

      • Javier –

        “…gone down in 2015 by 0.6%”

        That should read “..reportedly have gone down in 2015 by 0.6%”.

        Another reason that he can’t lose that bet: it can not be proven that any countries reported CO2 emissions are an accurate figure.

      • Ferd, “Then where is the increasing atmospheric CO2 coming from if not from emissions?”

        The rate of emissions can fall but the accumulation will continue to accumulate.

        Emissions aren’t zero, just falling from what they were.

        Further, El Ninos exhibit increases in accumulation. It’s not especially clear why, but I’ve seen it speculated that increased fires from El Nino drought areas, particularly in rain forests, is one source.

    • CO2 emissions have been stagnating since 2012
      =====================================
      then explain this:

      • The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory is one of five volcano observatories within the U.S. Geological Survey and is responsible for monitoring volcanoes and earthquakes in Hawai`i.

        http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/activity/maunaloastatus.php


        Gas Monitoring

        Monitoring volcanic gases can provide clues about the internal workings of an active volcano. In 2005, HVO installed gas monitoring systems to track changes in gas release from Mauna Loa.

        A real-time ambient gas monitoring station located in Mokuʻāweoweo, (see photo below), measures fumarole (volcanic gas vent) and ambient air temperatures, as well as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations adjacent to the fumarole. Changes in gas emissions can signal a change in eruptive status; gathering SO2 and CO2 data as Mauna Loa activity increases can help track the movement of magma within the volcano.For information on the current status of Mauna Loa click here.

        http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/maunaloa/current/monitoringdata.php#gas

      • The latest estimates show that CO2 emissions decreased by 0.6% in 2015, due to China’s supposed decrease in coal burned, though it’s never known for certain whether the numbers reported by China actually represent the truth.

        Despite the latest reports, coal consumption is expected to increase for years. The bet is far from a sure thing though.

      • Why does everybody ignore the obvious annual periodicity in this chart? The fact that the CO2 can DECREASE by 6-7 ppm in just 5 months should be a red flag that there is something *seasonal* (i.e. related to the earth’s annual motion, tilt of the axes, solar input, etc.) that is a major driver of the CO2 level.

      • That is not a chart of emissions.
        ===================
        Then where is the increasing atmospheric CO2 coming from if not from emissions?

        Are you saying that human emissions are not the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2?

      • Turbulent Eddie & PWturner — why there is difference in your charts on emissions at 2014, for example India vs USA. Are there several types of emission scenarios like temperature?

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • Dr Reddy: “why there is difference in your charts on emissions at 2014, for example India vs USA. Are there several types of emission scenarios like temperature?”

        Those are national emissions estimates from the “EDGAR” database.

        India has a relatively young and growing population, and economy, so CO2 emissions will likely follow that for the next few decades. The US population is still growing, but slowly, and it’s aging rapidly, that plus efficiencies account for the declines.

      • ferd berple:

        Your post asks:

        That is not a chart of emissions.
        ===================
        Then where is the increasing atmospheric CO2 coming from if not from emissions?

        Are you saying that human emissions are not the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2?

        I don’t know what that poster was “saying” but I can answer your substantive questions.

        The increasing atmospheric CO2 comes from distribution of CO2 flowing in the carbon cycle. Almost all the CO2 flowing in the carbon cycle is in the oceans. Less than 3% of the CO2 flowing into the atmosphere is from human activities. And orders of magnitude more CO2 flows into the atmosphere from the oceans than from human sources (and flows back out to cause most of the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2).

        Nobody knows if the human emissions are or are not the cause of increasing atmospheric CO2. The carbon cycle system seems to be adjusting to a changed equilibrium
        (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)).
        Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium.

        The CO2 emissions may be the cause of the changed equilibrium to the carbon cycle system, but the centuries of temperature rise which is recovery from the Little Ice Age is a much more likely cause.

        Importantly, nobody knows what if any effect altering the emission of CO2 from human activities will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration; e.g. . Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) says;

        no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios

        and no subsequent IPCC Report has amended that because there is still no published systematic analysis of “the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.

        Richard

    • Human production of co2 hasn’t stagnated. It is increasing nearly 1 billion metric tons a year over year. The number that has stagnated is the growth rate in the ppm. In 2012 the production was 35.56 BMT and in 2013 it was 36. 63 BMT and in 2014 it was over 38 BMT. The highest year on record per year of the highest amount of co2 ppm increase was 1998 at 2.93 ppm ( we did not produce 38 BMT in 1998, far from it). 2011 it was 1.88 ppm, 2012 it was 2.65, 2013 it was 2.05, 2014 it was 2.13 ppm..
      In 1999 the amount added to the atmosphere was 0.93 ppm. You can explain these numbers, right?
      In 1965 the production was 12 BMT with an increase of co2 at 1.02 ppm. How is it that we are producing 3 times the co2 and the ppm is barely 2 times?

      That implies we don’t know all the sources of co2 or the sink is eating into our current production at an accelerated pace. Did the earth get bigger? If the sink in 1965 was as big as todays , the co2 ppm would have been negative in spite of 12 BMT added by humans. And that is the offical numbers, I think today it’s eating an additional 2 BMT on top of offical numbers.

      • rishrac:

        You say and ask

        In 1999 the amount added to the atmosphere was 0.93 ppm. You can explain these numbers, right?
        In 1965 the production was 12 BMT with an increase of co2 at 1.02 ppm. How is it that we are producing 3 times the co2 and the ppm is barely 2 times?

        That implies we don’t know all the sources of co2 or the sink is eating into our current production at an accelerated pace. Did the earth get bigger? If the sink in 1965 was as big as todays , the co2 ppm would have been negative in spite of 12 BMT added by humans. And that is the offical numbers, I think today it’s eating an additional 2 BMT on top of offical numbers.

        The explanation for all your questions is that the accountancy model is inappropriate for assessing the rise in atmospheric CO2. Many of the sources and sinks (i.e. inputs and outputs) are not quantified and very few are adequately quantified for the model to make sense.

        As my above post explains, another model is more appropriate.

        Richard

      • I read your post. I think we are saying the same thing in a different way. I was responding to a comment that human produced co2 had flattened when it hasnt. Basically the co2 record proves your point. The other thing that keeps nagging at me ,and i alluded to it, is the current sink levels . The co2 rate per year per ppm may be wrong. I am having a hard time believing that the environment today can sink 19 BMT/year and in 1965 was only able to sink 6. My questions are pointed at the warmest crowd. All of the numbers are from NOAA.

    • China has been replacing old inefficient coalfired power stations with new more efficient coalfired piwer stations. That alone can deliver a reduction in CO2 emiisions while power usage is still increasing. But it’s a one-off, so extrapolating the CO2 reduction forward isn’t reasonable.

      • China’s working age population is falling and total population will be falling soon.
        That and improved efficiency are why China’s CO2 emissions will continue to fall, as they will for most of the developed world.

      • Turbulent Eddy

        Not disagreeing with concept of falling China population.

        As that pertains to CO2 emissions, you appear to assume a (somewhat) constant CO2/headcount – probably not going to happen as standard of living increases…

    • yeah recessions and factories shutting down globally will do that;-)
      do the jobless and unable to heat/cool/eat / miserable prospects do anyone any good?
      doubt that.
      guess another nice war might up production of some factories..no one counts the co2 from weapons n pollution from munitions I notice

      • ozspeaksup

        Your statement: “…yeah recessions and factories shutting down globally will do that;-)…”

        Looking at the CO2 record, that didn’t happen in the 2007-2010 time period of severe economic downturn. Just how severe a recession do you have to have to get a downturn?

  11. ???

    This is curious.

    Emissions appear to have stalled three years ago.
    They’re falling in China and most of the developed world.

    Fortunately, no draconian measures, nor government intrusion at all, have been necessary because increased efficiency and falling populations account for it.

    What this means is, economic growth ( which reduces population growth ) reduces CO2 emissions ( as well as all the other population based issues, real & imaginary ).

    I don’t have $100,000 to speculate with, but I’m not so sure that this is a good wager, especially if global population peaks by 2035 ( meaning working age population peaks earlier ).

    • CO2 lags warming. The 5% caused by humans of total emissions in a year will not change that.
      Even if it starts cooling, CO2 will still go up.

      • China’s CO2 emissions will continue to fall – it’s baked in the cake by population. India will continue to rise for a few decades more. The questions are mostly how fast(slow) will fertility rates in Africa fall?

  12. Hmm.. it could be a shaky bet because IF warming has peaked as many think and it starts getting colder again, CO2 will come back down on its own as oceans cool and absorb more CO2.

    • Even with cooling and lowered CO2, he would still win the bet, because it is about emissions, and not concentration. Hidden in this bet is the proposition that CO2 is not the temperature control knob for the world.

    • I don’t see the bet as an increase in the atmospheric CO2 level, it is a bet on an increase on human CO2 emissions.

      • Salby and Munshi have demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 content is independent of human emissions. If the Paris deal reduces emissions ,which I doubt, it will not likely have a discernible effect on the atmospheric CO2. What will very likely reduce human emissions is technology. With the positive completion of Rossi’s 1 year trial yesterday, Brilliant Light’s successful pre-prototype demonstration last month and Brillouin’s announcement of an industrial prototype for this year, I think the likelihood of new, carbonless energy sources will be well established by 2025 but that is probably too short of time to reduce emissions much.

    • If the temperature starts to drop substantially, that’s the end of the anti-CO2 scam, and coal will be resurgent.

  13. Clearly, there is something else going on with the climate other than CO2. However, Isvagaard makes a persuasive argument that he cannot find a solar cycle that corresponds to climate, or so it seems. I lack the basic science to nominate any other external phenomena than the Sun that could cycle over a multi-century period, so I am left rather confused.

  14. The Bet is a good little piece of PR. It has been picked up by multiple media channels already, and has given him a vehicle for his own messaging about CO2, obliquely referenced the reason for leaving Greenpeace, and given exposure for his current organization. All leveraged on his name recognition and the ‘Greenpeace co-founder’ personal brand.

    The PR from this is may we’ll be worth the $100K even now. And if someone accepts the bet, he will get an opportunity to publish progress updates between now and the culmination? If nobody takes the bait, that will be the another opportunity for news.

    Would be fun to watch.

  15. “Or are they just playing a game with the world?”

    Of course, they are just playing a game. The entire point is to get the $500 billion a year of “slush” money moving about the world, so it can fund all kinds of mischief.

    Think of it as welfare money for consultants and NGOs.

  16. [“In fact CO2 is one of the most important foods for life on Earth,” Dr. Moore continued.]

    CO2 is not just “one of the most important foods for life on Earth”, it is the lifeblood of life, it is paramount, it is essential, it is necessary for life.

    If there were no atmospheric CO2, the Carbon cycle of life ceases. The question we should be researching is: what is the minimum level of CO2 before causing irreversible loss of life. We see the term “irreversible” used in the ebb and flow of temperature or ice mass, but clearly those items are cyclic. If Earth’s atmospheric CO2 dips below some minimum, all life will perish. With each one part of atmosphere there is 0.0004 parts CO2. Seems that we’re quite close to zero at present, and the minimum exists between current levels and zero. What can Man do to ensure that Earth does not reach this CO2 minimum? We could employ the magnificence of human intellect and feats of engineering to find and retrieve organic compounds from great depths and reintroduce them to the Carbon cycle of life by distributing them across the globe and allow each individual a source of power that in turn produces and freely distributes CO2 where it is equally accessible to all life regardless of location.

    • There is a feedback mechanism in place. As CO2 increases plants flourish, removing more CO2 from the air. When CO2 drops (as it evidently has in the geological past – else how did it get as low as it is now?) the plants suffer CO2 deficiency, and are less able to remove it from the air. The Law of Malthus operates on plants, as well.

  17. The U.S. is already on track to win the bet by virtue of — gasp! — ever-improving technology. China and India won’t because they’re still in the rapid-growth phase of their economic development, but try again in another 50 years and I’ll bet their CO2 emissions will have declined too. The EPA has documented declining U.S. carbon dioxide emissions here:

    http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/us-ghg-emissions.html

    And that’s BEFORE any greenhouse-gas-limiting rules from Obama and the EPA’s Clean Power Plan have taken effect; legislation that — based on the EPA’s own data — is entirely unnecessary.

    Technological innovation, baby! It’s what humans naturally do in free countries.

      • The “increase in US nat gas usage” is due to “ever-improving technology”. It is improved fracking technology that has allowed tapping reserves that couldn’t be reached before, creating the natural gas boom. Improvements in engines produces cleaner and fewer emissions, and so on and so forth. Technological innovation wins the day.

  18. I think Dr. Moore should put a time limit on his challenge. Dr. Moore is betting that the world is not willing to stall the economy to reduce CO2 emissions. But the world economy is teetering right now, and if it collapses, there will be a drastic collapse in CO2 emissions. Even though it will be absolutely not what the world wants, Dr. Moore will lose the bet.

  19. Western civilization will save the planet…if only it were allowed to. Also, never feed the trolls,they need it to survive.

  20. Dr. Moore left Greenpeace because he believed that environmentalism should be about balancing the needs of nature and humanity. Greenpeace ultimately morphed into the radical eco-fascist organization it is today, treating humanity as an unnatural species and a blight on the planet.
    Their ultimate goal, like that of other environmental groups, is human population control and the planet-wide sequestering of as much land, including private land, as they possibly can. They are already well on their way to meeting that goal as over 30% of the American land base (700 million acres) lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions.

  21. Here is a projection of growth and commitments.

    Projected Economic Growth
    2015 – 2030

    Asia Pacific 164.9%
    North America 75.3%
    Europe and Eurasia 70.3%
    Middle East 116.7%
    South and Central America 95.6%
    Africa 91.1%

    COP 21 Commitments
    The US will cut its emissions by 26% to 28%, compared with 2005 levels, by 2025.
    The EU will cut its emissions by 40%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2030.
    China will agree that its emissions will peak by 2030.
    India can triple its CO2 emissions by 2030

    Source: TCE

    Power plant construction plans already on the books ensure greater CO2 emissions by 2025.

  22. Here is my estimate of the increase in CO2 emissions, based on current trends, if all goes to plan.
    In 2015 In 2030

    7,132 5,923 North America -17.0%
    6,711 5,988 Europe & Eurasia -10.8%
    1,539 2,231 S. & Cent. America 45.0%
    2,272 3,140 Middle East 38.2%
    1,221 1,692 Africa 38.6%
    17,103 20,029 Asia Pacific 17.1%
    1,043 1,015
    37,022 40,018 8.09%

  23. Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Reblogged to capture Rud Istvan’s generous offer to another commenter:

    ristvan February 19, 2016 at 2:49 pm
    Agree. And I will offer k.mitchell upthread a little one. I will take one of the two contour fields due for rotation from alfalfa to corn or or soy on my Wisconsin farm. And offer it to him free– he gets to keep his yield and sell it. Heck, we will even harvest it for him (so the machines can track yield). Now, we would have used glyphosate, then a no till seed drill behind my diesel tractor. He will have to plow (by horse, since FF are evil), sow by horse or hand, and then hoe the rows three times: in late May (seedlings), Mid June (plant development), then early July (preanthesis aka for corn, tasseling) to control the weeds that glyphosate woild have eliminated. After tasseling, corn doesn’t care so much about weeds except giant palmer amaranth–we have only a little. I will provide free board at the farmhouse, horses, plows, and hoes. NOT non GMO seed. On his own there, since I think he will have to go to Europe to find a decent modern nonGMO hybrid.
    Three serious bets. 1. K. Mitchell declines this generous offer (a rare opportunity to live in whatnis partly an 1880’s pioneer cabin, cook over a wood stove, unplug the evil electric refrig and TV, and even read by kerosene lamps (power outage backups as we are pretty remote) to get back to his idyll of agrarian farming. 2. If he does take my generous offer, he will not be able to survive the rigors. 3. If by some miracle he does stay the coirse physically, his yield will be less than 2/3 of we produced last on those same fields using modern agricultural techology. And he will have proven you cannot feed the world the way he wished and hoped. Sort of like renewables, but with a much sharper cutting reality edge.
    Offer made. Awaiting reply.

Comments are closed.