Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scientific American reports that the world economy is growing without increases in CO2 emissions, which the author attributes to the rise of green energy. However, there are several issues with this claim.
World Economy Grows without Growth in Global Warming Pollution
Energy-sector emissions of CO2 remains flat for second year in a row
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions held steady for the second year in a row while the economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency.
In a simple, two-column spreadsheet released yesterday, IEA showed that the world’s energy sector produced 32.14 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2015, up slightly from 32.13 metric gigatons in 2014. Meanwhile, the global economy grew more than 3 percent.
Analysts credited the rise of renewables—clean energy made up more than 90 percent of new energy production in 2015—for keeping greenhouse gas emissions flat.
“The new figures confirm last year’s surprising but welcome news: we now have seen two straight years of greenhouse gas emissions decoupling from economic growth,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol in a press release. “Coming just a few months after the landmark COP21 agreement in Paris, this is yet another boost to the global fight against climate change.”
…
But some were skeptical of the carbon numbers and questioned IEA’s conclusion that economic growth and energy emissions aren’t linked anymore.
CONSERVATIVES, OTHERS QUESTION IEA DATA
“I think that’s just silly,” said Benjamin Zycher, the John G. Searle chair and an energy scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “The estimates of global greenhouse gas emissions really vary depending on which data set you are looking at.”
Global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions are likely higher, Zycher said. Some nations have had flat emissions but for unique factors that are hard to replicate elsewhere, he said.
Frankly I’m a little skeptical of the model estimates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. For example, we have seen recent enormous revisions to Chinese CO2 estimates, which begs the question of what other mistakes are waiting to be discovered. Whatever is happening to anthropogenic CO2, there doesn’t seem to be a noticeable change to the Mauna Loa CO2 trend, though who knows – perhaps it is too early to tell.
A really great read that is the topic here often and is the subtopic every post —>>
Many scientific “truths” are, in fact, false
http://qz.com/638059/many-scientific-truths-are-in-fact-false/
————–
“For example, there’s massive academic pressure to publish in journals, and these journals tend to publish exciting studies that show strong results.
“Journals favor novelty, originality, and verification of hypotheses over robustness, stringency of method, reproducibility, and falsifiability,” Hagger tells Quartz. “Therefore researchers have been driven to finding significant effects, finding things that are novel, testing them on relatively small samples.”
“This has created a publication bias, where studies that show strong, positive results get published, while similar studies that come up with no significant effects sit at the bottom of researchers’ drawers.”
———————–
And now the serious side of Pamela. When rather suddenly, CO2 dramatically rises and then pauses a bit as it bumps slightly up and down at a sharp or flat topped peak (which it is currently doing) for a few hundred years, there actually IS, all kidding aside, cause for worry over climate change.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://www.jerome-chappellaz.com/files/publications/epica-dome-c-record-of-glacial-and-interglacial-intensities-133.pdf
Pamela
Yes l have to agree with you here.
For 3 years l have been waiting for the weather to give me a insight into ice age formation. Now for the rest of this month it seems to be turning up all at once.
Blocking building up in the NE corner of the Pacific driving cold air down across eastern North America. Over the Atlantic a flat Azores high spanning the ocean and high pressure over Greenland. Allowing a strong zonal jet to form between them. For someone who like me is convinced that the ice age was in a large part due to the weather. Then this pattern set up has got my interest.
I’ve been telling folks about this for a while:
CO2 emission rates are peaking and it’s happening without great effort or changing energy forms.
It was predictable because of demographics. Most of the world has falling fertility rates and rates which are less than replacement. Many countries have outright falling populations and many that aren’t there yet have falling working age populations
Decelerating population, aging populations, and technological improvements to efficiency have reduced CO2 emissions. This means, necessarily that CO2 forcing rates are declining and that future warming rates will be less than the already low end rates observed.
+1
Bout 3 years ago I compiled the following statistics via reliable sources, to wit:
Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 1.9% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.8% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.7% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.2% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.4% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 3.62% ____ 394 ppm – 1.3% —– 2.5 ppm/year
Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Based on the above statistics, to wit:
Fact #1 – In 70 years – world population increased 207% – CO2 increased 31.3%
Fact #2 – Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for the past 70 years, …… whereas human generated CO2 releases have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Fact #3 – Global Temperatures have been steadily and consistently increasing a few hundredths or tenths of a degree for the past 70 years, ……. whereas human created infrastructure, housing, vehicles, etc. (Heat Islands) have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Conclusions:
Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases.
Increases in Average Global Temperature and world population increases.
Increases in Average Global Temperature and Heat Islands construction increases.
Increases in Average Global Temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.
But then of course, …… I am not looking through Rose Colored Glasses.
Samuel,
An unstated assumption that leads to your conclusions is that the additional people are using fossil fuels in the same proportion as those who came before them. That is obviously false when one takes into consideration the increase in the standard of living of Chinese and Indians in particular. However, even the standard of living of Americans has increased in the last 70 years. That is to say, The CO2 emissions are increasing faster than population because people are using more energy per capita.
Didn’t the Mauna Loa people get the memo to cool it on the CO2?
Has anybody ever proferred a mechanism for the observable fact that atmospheric CO2 levels consistently DROP between the beginning of May to the beginning of October, by 6 to 7 ppm, EVERY year? This includes the warmest months of the year, when the heat *should* be speeding soil gas release, aiding biomass decomposition and degassing the northern oceans.
Plants are eating it.
YUP, and the dead plant biomass is belching it up faster than the live plants can eat it.
And besides that, those live plants are belching it up and out during the night time. Their metabolism doesn’t stop just because there is no Sunlight.
tadchem, the “mechanism” you question that produces the “steady & consistent” bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 is the seasonal changes that are instigated by the Spring and Fall equinoxes. To wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
And the cause of said “bi-yearly CO2 cycling” is NOT the near-land temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, ….. but IS in fact the ocean water temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere. The ocean surface area in the SH is far greater than the land surface area in the NH …. and therefore the temperature of the SH ocean waters is the “DRIVER” of the bi-yearly cycling of CO2.
Rubbish! SH Oceanic sites show very little cycling during the year, compared with significant cycling in the NH.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Baring_Head_NZ_CO2.jpg
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/SIOMLOINSITUTHRU2008.JPG
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Barrow_CO2.jpg
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Kermadec_CO2.jpg
Phil, you are comparing the statistics of hamburgers to cumquats. To wit:
Baring Head, NZ, latitude 41.4 S, is only 87 m (285 ft) above sea level.
Kermadec Islands, latitude 29.2 S, at an altitude of 50 m (160 ft) above sea level
Mauna Loa, HI, latitude 19.4 N, is situate at 3397 m (11,141 ft) above sea level.
Barrow, AK, latitude 71.2 N, at an altitude of 3 m (9.8 ft) above sea level.
Samuel C Cogar March 20, 2016 at 5:17 am
Phil, you are comparing the statistics of hamburgers to cumquats. To wit:
Baring Head, NZ, latitude 41.4 S, is only 87 m (285 ft) above sea level.
Kermadec Islands, latitude 29.2 S, at an altitude of 50 m (160 ft) above sea level
Mauna Loa, HI, latitude 19.4 N, is situate at 3397 m (11,141 ft) above sea level.
Barrow, AK, latitude 71.2 N, at an altitude of 3 m (9.8 ft) above sea level.
So what? According to you “the temperature of the SH ocean waters is the “DRIVER” of the bi-yearly cycling of CO2”. How can the temperature of the ocean water not then effect the CO2 concentration a few meters above? The surface data and the satellite data clearly shows that the seasonal variation primarily is driven by the land in the NH (vegetation).
Samuel C Cogar,
Again, the main seasonal drivers are not the oceans but the NH extra-tropical forests which start regrowth in spring, but which full uptake of CO2 takes a few months. That is proven beyond doubt, as CO2 level and δ13C increase oppose each other: CO2 uptake is preferentially 12CO2, thus while vegetation increases its uptake in spring-summer-fall, δ13C levels will go up as relative more 12CO2 is removed out of the atmosphere than 13CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
Phil said:
Phil, getta clue, one can not obtain accurate atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities if measured at near-surface locations …… unless said location is at an extreme altitude or an extreme desert environment of extremely low atmospheric water (H2O) vapor ppm.
Please read the following w/comprehension, to wit:
So Phil, I ask you, just how are they “hunting down and removing the sources of noise” from the measurements taken at Baring Head, Kermadec and/or Barrow?
Phil also said:
Phil, there is no near-surface CO2 ppm data that is accurate except for “spot” measurements.
And Phil, satellites can not “see” or detect atmospheric CO2 molecules ….. therefore there is no way in hell they can be used to obtain an accurate CO2 ppm count.
And besides that, it is a biological impossibility for the bi-yearly (average 6 ppm) cycling of atmospheric CO2 to be driven by the land in the NH (vegetation), …. simply because, …… the “rotting” of the dead bio-mass with the outgassing of great quantities of CO2 …… is occurring at the same time as the “growing” of the live bio-mass with the ingassing of great quantities of CO2.
Phil, the following “rules” also apply to the Fall and Winter time “biological activity” on the land in the NH, …. so please read w/comprehension, to wit:
Ferdinand Englebeen,
Why do you continue to insist on averting your eyes and your mind to the fact that the outgassing of CO2 due to the microbial decomposition of dead biomass begins in early Spring at a minimum of 10 to 14 days prior to any ingassing of CO2 due to the springtime growth of live biomass?
DUH, the initial springtime growth of vegetation does not require any ingassing of atmospheric CO2.
Samuel,
If you don’t accept that bacteria simply go on with their work even at air temperatures of -20°C if isolated under a snow deck, then we can’t have a discussion at all…
“In a simple, two-column spreadsheet released yesterday, IEA showed that” … they can massage data just as well as the next guy. They also showed that they are either completely ignorant, or they think everyone else is by essentially stating that economic production has been/can be decoupled from energy production.
IEA is just another international agency being misdirected like all the others. They are in the PR release schedule along with World Bank, IMF, OECD, IPCC, and others. It’s not like they have anything else to do, right?
This is just a climastrologist false flag. They have probably been noting that the temperature may be about to drop in a cooling period (and is flat at present) so they are switching to a “See we did it!” Of course the MSM/greenies and most of the public will ignore the actual continued rise in CO2, at least for some time.
From the ice cores, when CO2 peaks the earth cools and re-glaciates. If CO2 is dropping I would be very, very worried.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a lagging indicator of temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. Oceans get cold first, then CO2 goes down. The reverse is also true wrt ocean warming.
Personally, I could care less what the Seance Specific American reports these days. Once upon a time, they did a good job of science. These days, they have become just another religious tract house like the Watchtower.
Climate Math, plus Climate Economics, combined with Climate Logic. What could go wrong?
… and next year, when the temperatures come down thanks to La Nina, they will claim victory over global warming…
Folks, it’s not surprising. Most of the leading emitters ( China, US, Europe, Japan, Russia ) have declining emissions since 2013. India has increasing emissions, as does some of the developing world, and somewhat strangely, South American countries. But as a whole most of humanity has declining emissions to match decelerating populations and accelerating technology. Good news!
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/FallingEmissions.png
..China’s emissions are declining ?? That was a joke right ?
“..China’s emissions are declining ?? That was a joke right ?”
No. China’s population about to fall if it isn’t already:
http://en.people.cn/mediafile/201108/02/P201108021529441037117374.jpg
And China’s young population, the kind that drives growth and leaves the lights on has been falling for a decade, while its old population, the kind that slows growth because it’s on a fixed income, is rising rapidly:
http://www.universalconsensus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/China-population-by-age.gif
Sorry, that chart is working age population, not total. But that too is significant, because consumption, including consumption of energy, is tied to income.
TE,
What’s happening in Greenland???
.. I’m not strictly religious but, you’ve got to find allies where you can !
http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=8fe89cf100dfd0bf13664d610&id=0df5a3e25d&e=ccf4032d2a
I’m definitely not getting the same information about the world economy as they are if they’re saying it’s growing.
Yes, global growth is anemic, but that’s a natural consequence of slowing/falling population.
Production Growth = Productivity X NumberOfProducers
If NumberOfProducers falls, so too will growth.
“Whatever is happening to anthropogenic CO2, there doesn’t seem to be a noticeable change to the Mauna Loa CO2 trend,” – And what change does the author expect there? A drop of CO2 concentration?
The emissions are still there in roughly the same amount as in previous year. So CO2 concentration will still rise.
Now we will see the climate deniers claiming “there is no connection between CO2 made by humans and CO2 in atmosphere as there was no drop in the graph at Mauna Loa”. Oh no, I just gave them a guideline…
But I agree there may be a problem with estimates – especially Chinese communists just want to look good.
Petr Houzar,
What is a “climate denier”? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
Go stand in the back with the other eco-lemmings.
“And what change does the author expect there? A drop of CO2 concentration?”
No, a decrease in its rate of increase.
“The emissions are still there in roughly the same amount as in previous year. So CO2 concentration will still rise.”
But, should be doing so at a reduced rate, if emissions were genuinely the driver.
And will you see that reduced rate in a graph? The difference will be very very small.
Also, of course, the original article speaks only about “Energy-sector emissions of CO2” which are stagnating. Yes, this is the biggest sector, but not the only one.
Not according to your model Bart, according to that it only depends on T.
Bingo, Phil! So, if temperatures are rising due to El Nino, and CO2 rate increases, but emissions stay steady, what does that tell you?
Why do we even care about The “Mauna Loa CO2 trend”. Mt. Mauna Loa is 21 miles away from the Kilauea volcano. It puts out so much SO2 that all the vegetation within a 10 mile radius is either dead or a very sickly grey-green color. CO2 is the #2 gas it emits and the prevailing winds blow toward Mauna Loa.
If you wanted to measure the CO2 in your back yard would you place your sensor next to your charcoal grille?
Ah, but we were told over and over that Mauna Loa measurements are representative of the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. How come it shouldn’t be so now, that these same measurements are suddenly inconvenient to CAGW propagandists?
Actually this is the point. They must eliminate the influence of CO2 absorbed or emitted locally by plants and soils, or emitted locally by human activities. Thats much more important than volcanoes which do not produce much CO2.
The other good station is the South Pole with a very similar levels and trend.
Well, just like Monty Python’s “Black Knight”, this appears to be just a flesh wound…
Governments are most likely lying about their growth numbers. I would rather trust the co2 emissions as a measurement for growth over gdp any day… 🙂
Many greenies are also claiming victory over ozone/CFC controls even though the data contradicts. They will approach AGW in exactly the same way. Claiming victory when CO2 emissions decrease but have NO effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The stream of false propaganda will continue as long as the useful idiots listen and accept. There will be no relief for critical thinkers. Gk
G. Karst,
Correctomundo. When facts, logic and evidence fails the alarmist crowd, they always have their fallback tactic: ‘Say Anything’.
The evidence is pretty shallow for this one. One really needs to have a good handle on emission numbers
and growth in th eeconomy of 3 percent may be quite different than that other year’s growth of 3 percent.
I would say that weather plays a very large part in emissions and doesn’t have much connection to economic growth except probably a negative one. This is why natural experiments such as these are usually unable to nail down dependent and independent variables and their relationship. These experiments depend heavilly upon prior knowledge of the variables and also especially depend upon the intelligence of the experimenter.
What about increased eñergy efficiency? Light bulbs, car automatic transmissions, and electronic equipment have gotten more efficient and don’t need as much power or fuel as before to perform the same as before.
Further efficiency gains are available, such as by having electronic equipment using LED indicator lamps mode efficient than current usual practice of using LEDs with 1980s technology to save a few pennies. Many homes can get insulation improvements. People can “dress for the weather” when indoors to reduce climate control energy consumption – and cut climate control bills. In summer in hot parts of the US, men could dress like men do in places such as American Samoa – where a majority of men wear knee length skirts, even as office wear. That can reduce air conditioning costs a lot, take a load off of America’s stressed aging poser grids, let our limited fossil fuel supplies last longer, reduçe air pollution, and reduce the need to spend money on building more power plants.
Likewise in winter, people can wear suits, sweaters, cardigans, thermalwear, whatever and then only need their homes to be warm enough to keep the pipes from freezing. That can free up a lot of money to save, invest or spend on other stuff, along with letting our fossil fuel supplies to last longer until we get fusion or something better actually working.
Note that I cited good reasons for reducing energy consumption that were mentioned as far back as in the 1970s, before we knew we had enough fossil fuel available reserves for our growing global population to have enough to burn to cause atmospheric CO2 to increase as much as has been increasing.
CO2 emissions had an extremely slight decrease in the past year from a high emission rate. As for ozone, the growth of the ozone hole was stopped and slightly reversed, despite signs of rogue halogenated hydrocarbon emissions slowing the reduction of the ozone hole.
If man’s production of CO2 remained the same or even decreased, why does CO2 continue to go higher is man is the cause? CO2 appears to be accelerating on the upside and man cuts back its production. What this is evidence of is that man isn’t the cause of the increase in CO2. Most likely it is the oceans that are warming. Why are the oceans warming? Because more sunlight is reaching them. Nature, not Man, controls atmospheric CO2.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=14m34s
Nature, not Man, controls…. EVERYTHING !!
Last year production exceeded the net loss to sinks so the pCO2 increased, no reason to suppose that it wouldn’t do so again if emissions stay constant.
Yet another “Just So” story.
If we continue warming, we will experience continued increasing greening each growing season. That march towards the interglacial warming peak, on a global basis, far outstrips fossil fuel use.
Sounds like to me that this is not victory for green technology but fracking that has increased that fossil fuel we call Natural gas.