The EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions increased in 2015 for the first time since 2010.
According to new data published by the European Environment Agency (EEA), the 0.5% increase happened largely due to increasing demand for transport – better fuel efficiency in the sector was not enough to offset this.
The report suggests a slightly colder winter across Europe also contributed to increased emissions, due to higher demand for heating.
Road transport emissions, which account for about a fifth of total EU greenhouse gas emissions, increased for the second year in a row, by 1.6 %. Aviation emissions also increased by 3.3 %.
The increase in emissions was relatively slight, compared to the strongest annual economic growth (2.2 %) witnessed in the EU since 2007 and following a 4% decrease in emissions in 2014.
Spain, Italy and the Netherlands accounted for the largest increases in greenhouse gas emissions, with the UK showing the largest decrease (7.5%) of the European Member States.
h/t to The GWPF
It’s informative watching the Church of Climate evolve around physical and political inputs. Might be more realistic to call it the Church of Spaghetti.
I hope I am not violating some policy by leaving this query here, but I don’t see any other place to put it.
Does anybody have any opinions of the worth of this pub from the CATO Institute:
“Last year, Michaels and co-author Paul C. Knappenberger energetically assessed the climate agreement and the overall state of climate change science and policy in their book Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything.
Lukewarming stands solidly against the belief that there are only two camps when it comes to climate change: alarmist or denier. There is a third group—lukewarmers. In this widely read book, Michaels and Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot—it’s lukewarm. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated—with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible.”
Thanks!
1. The article appears to accurately state the lukewarm stance on AGW.
2. The lukewarm belief that human CO2 emissions or other activity such as land clearing are a controlling causation of enduring shifts in the climate of the earth appears there to be not adequately dealt with — merely glossed over and assumed. They have no data proving causation. They have what they consider to be plausible assumptions.
So. The main problem with the article is: it asserts as fact what is merely a guess.
The dismaying aspect of lukewarmism is: it (unintentional, but the effect is just as real), mostly by creating doubt and confusion about human CO2/other activities, ends up promoting the speculation that human CO2 causes “climate change.” Thus, by their poorly articulated argument (i.e., without the qualifiers necessary to be accurate) lukewarmists end up promoting envirostalinism and enviroprofiteering.
“Michaels and Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot—it’s lukewarm. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated—with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible.”
Lukewarmers believe that CO2 probably causes some warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, although not nearly as much as the computer models are predicting, although there is no measurement that can currently tell us if CO2 is warming the atmosphere, instead there are guesses. It’s entirely possible that CO2 warming could be offset by negative feedbacks in the atmosphere to where the net warmth added by CO2 might be zero. Noone can say right now one way or another.
Lukewarmers don’t think it is zero, but they don’t think it is nearly as high as the IPCC claims it should be, and ECS estimates look like they are limiting the upside to about 1.5C or less at the current time, as opposed to the IPCC figure of a 4.5C rise.
This quote is incorrect: “Climate change is real, it is partially man-made,”.
Noone, and I mean noone can prove that climate change is partially man-made. It is pure speculation. They can’t prove that CO2 is net warming the atmosphere, and therefore they cannot prove that CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to change. Anytime you hear someone say this know that they don’t know what they are talking about. They are guessing without evidence.
I am suspicious regarding your question.
Asking for opinions is a question, but that is unlikely your actual question.
Are you asking if we distrust CATO? Well, I don’t particularly distrust them and I am careful to read their articles carefully before sharing them.
Or are you asking about “lukewarmers”?
Looking to the right side of the WUWT web page, you will find links to other web sites; grouped efficiently under broad labels. One of those labels is “Lukewarmer” and I believe the group only lists web links to sites that actively proclaim themselves lukewarmers.
There are quite a few “Skeptical View” websites that are lukewarmers; but they entertain, or ignore, diverse opinions ranging from refusing all CO2 atmospheric impact through levels of lukewarm.
Or are you asking about lukewarmers?
I suspect this is your real question; otherwise why a policy concern?
Many of us if not the vast majority are lukewarmers.
A) CO2 is a GHG. point accepted.
B) Effect or impact of CO2 on the atmosphere; unverified estimates.
C) Measured CO2 GHG effect on atmosphere; nonexistent
D) Truth be told, there is not a reliable method of determining today’s CO2 atmospheric effects.
Which leaves an immense amount of room for personal speculations and beliefs.
While the 97% climate scientist alleged polls are totally spurious; in truth, as a rough estimate, most of us fall into that 97% percentage.
Very few of us agree with the specious catastrophic anthropogenic claim(s). That claim is not tested, verified or validated by any of the alleged polls. Just the fact that someone’s model allegedly can prove CO2 catastrophic events is bizarre, at best. Far too many catastrophic claims are egotistical grandstanding.
The entire notion of a GHG is incorrect, that is not how a greenhouse works. Carbon Dioxide has zero effect on climate or temperature it is all about atmospheric pressure not atmospheric components.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.php?aid=88574
PMK
“Many of us if not the vast majority are lukewarmers.
A) CO2 is a GHG. point accepted.
B) Effect or impact of CO2 on the atmosphere; unverified estimates.
C) Measured CO2 GHG effect on atmosphere; nonexistent
D) Truth be told, there is not a reliable method of determining today’s CO2 atmospheric effects.”
I think that sums it up perfectly, ATheoK.
Anyone who claims the climate is changing because of human-caused CO2 is either being dishonest or doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Notice that just about every pro-AGW/CAGW article makes some kind of statement claiming that humans are currently changing the climate. I don’t know which ones are dishonest versus the ones who don’t know what they are talking about, but it has to be one or the other, since there is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.
They are *assuming* the climate is changing without any evidence. In fact, the evidence goes against their narrative which is that the atmosphere is getting hotter and hotter, which will cause more numerous extreme weather events, when the reality is there is much less extreme weather today than in the past, just the opposite of what the promoters of CAGW say will happen.
I heard Al Gore a couple of days ago claiming looking at today’s weather was like reading about the horrors of the End of Times in the book of Revelations, and I thought to myself, what planet is this guy living on. What extreme weather? Gore, and his ilk, are completely delusional, seeing only what they want to see.
And I heard Gore say at the same time that seeing fish swimming in the streets of Miami was proof that the oceans were rising fast because of CAGW and were flooding Miami as a result.
This just demonstrates what a deliberate liar Gore is. There is no way he couldn’t know that the ocean rising is not the reason for the flooding in Miami. Instead it is a matter of geology and building codes. Gore has to know this, so he is deliberately telling a false story to promote his religion. Gore is an accomplished liar, just like his old boss Bill Clinton.
Sounds like they may be on to something, pamela. Very interesting. They still have a ways to go to really nail it down, but they are getting closer.
No and yes Pamela.
That CO₂ is a “greenhouse gas” GHG is based on the simple definition given that a “greenhouse gas” absorbs and emits infra-red frequency particles of light.
CO₂ meets that definition.
Is the wrong name applied to infrared emitting/absorbing molecules? Absolutely!
Because of that erroneous name aspect, green house gases are attributed amazing powers; drawn from assumptions based on ordinary people’s experiences with common greenhouses.
CO₂ does have atmospheric effect.
What is not known or accurately measured is an accurate CO₂ – atmosphere interaction scenario.
Given CO₂’s immense accretion rate of 1.2 CO2 molecules per ten thousand molecules of atmosphere over 135 years:
without exacting measured CO₂ impact or effects,
without a rational detailed working CO₂ / atmosphere understanding,
working with the grossest of estimates…
Alleged climate scientists have failed citizens and science within every atmospheric science front.
Literally, climate scientists have snatched ignorance from the jaws of knowledge; preferring the darkness of abject ignorance to the bright light of reality and science.
Where and when does gross job malfeasance become base fraud?
Instead, ask why climate science has totally failed to improve atmospheric knowledge even with immense amounts of money thrown at climate science?
That abject refusal of climate science to advance climate science in lieu of global political activism smacks of fraudulent activities from treason to social psychological damage to willful malfeasance wasting precious public funds.
Interesting link Pamela.
Beware sky dragons. Especially those basing their claims on models, minimal actual observations, and assumptions going into the models.
You make some good points in your comment, Theo. What passes for science among “climate scientists” is little more than fantasy. They fail to understand how complex climate is, impossible to model accurately, especially when they don’t understand most of what is going on. It is frightening that what these clowns call research is little more than inventing some numbers (carefully adjusted), making a lot of assumptions to make sure they get the answer they want, pushing it all through their streamlined computer model, and publishing what comes out. Naturally in a peer-reviewed journal that sends the MS to “friendly” peers for review. Seldom have so many been so delighted with so much garbage!
PMK
Extremely accurately stated, Pamela!
One can always hope that future scientists learn to model Earth’s atmosphere for longer than a few days.
Thanks to all who responded?
I mean, they can just go ahead and blame it on Trump’s decision and the gullible saps in the peanut gallery will gobble the excuse up like a bunch of clapping seals.
‘Practice What You Preach’ EU’All !!!
Mods
A post of mine has just gone into moderation in which I was responding to Griff. See: richard verney
Your comment is awaiting moderation. June 6, 2017 at 2:45 pm
You will note that I intended to blockquote the opening quote but made a typo. Please will you blockquote the opening quote when my comment is posted
What is the explanation for the drop in the UK emissions? 7.5% drop in one year seems like quite a bit.
Close down of UK coal power plants…
Details in here among other stuff… closure was because owners would not pay to upgrade under new (non CO2 related) pollution laws.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11175700/Didcot-fire-Why-Britains-power-plants-have-closed-and-more-will-be-closing.html
They only made 64 of these Chevies so get your order in early . . .
http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/bcportal.html/currentVideoId/5181900665001/pnId/1/typeId/c/currentChannelId/Most%20Recent.html
Belgium (#7 on the list) wants to lower its target for GHG-emissions. It will negotiate with the EU to lower the target of 35%.
http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/8416/minister-marghem-wants-to-relax-belgium-s-climate-ambitions
“The report suggests a slightly colder winter across Europe also contributed to increased emissions, due to higher demand for heating.”
Wait a minute, I thought this was the hottest year (ever!) in recorded history!!
Haha
Arctic cold was displaced over Europe by an anomalously warm arctic.
Warmer is AGW, colder is weather…