From the EUROPEAN COMMISSION JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
The annual assessment of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the JRC and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) confirms that CO2 emissions have stalled for the third year in a row.
The report provides updated results on the continuous monitoring of the three main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Global GHG emissions continue to be dominated by fossil carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which however show a slowdown trend since 2012, and were stalled for the third year in a row in 2016.
Russia, China, the US and Japan further decreased their CO2 emissions from 2015 to 2016, while the EU’s emissions remained stable with respect to the previous year, and India’s emissions continued to increase.
-Other greenhouse gases keep creeping up
Information on the other two greenhouse gases, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), is only available until 2012, as international statistics on agricultural activities – the main source of these emissions – are not updated as frequently as on energy and industry-related activities.
Uncertainty is also higher for these emissions than for CO2 emissions.
However, the data until 2012 shows a steady increase in global GHG emissions, with an overall increase of 91% from 1970 to 2012.
CH4 is mainly generated by agricultural activities, the production of coal and gas, as well as waste treatment and disposal. N2O is mainly emitted by agricultural soil activities and chemical production.
In the EU, 60% of the CH4 and N2O emissions are emitted by the top six emitting countries – Germany, UK, France, Poland, Italy and Spain.
The upward trend in CH4 and N2O emissions is also visible in the US, China, Japan and India which all recorded increasing GHG emissions.
-Europe’s downward trend stalling
Over the past two decades, the EU28 has steadily decreased its CO2 emissions, which still represent two thirds of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2016, the EU’s CO2 emissions were 20.8% below the levels in 1990 and 17.9% below the levels in 2005. Since 2015, the EU’s CO2 emissions have stabilised, representing 9.6% of global emissions.
-Country profiles
The report is based on the JRC’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), which is not only unique in its space and time coverage, but also in its completeness and consistency of the emissions compilations for multiple pollutants: the greenhouse gases (GHG), air pollutants and aerosols.
The new report contains country-specific fact sheets for 216 countries. The factsheets show the evolution of country-level CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2016 and the evolution of country-level GHG emissions from 1970 to 2012.
###
Read the full report here: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/booklet2017/CO2_and_GHG_emissions_of_all_world_countries_booklet_online.pdf
Whatever happened to the dominant “greenhouse gas”, H2O?
its increasing too, but only
after the temperature first
increases. about 7% per 1 C warming.
Still the deadliest chemical on Earth. Just this year it was involved in several major attacks on the United States costing tens of billions of dollars and countless lives.
The UN is reportedly considering a ban.
I really do wish you US people would do dates the right way round, but it’ll be easy for you to look through NASA’s OCO gallery. As in DD/MM/YY
Maybe it helps with keeping track of the 23 ninety fifths of the acre-feet?
No matter, diversity is good, I’ll be the first to say as much 😀
Hopefully here:
https://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/gallerydataproducts/#gallery
But if you do, you’ll see that CO2 as seen by OCO skyrockets in the Northern Hemisphere in the months March, April and May
Surely the strongest emissions will be through NH winter (Dec, Jan & Feb) because of big energy demands for heating, lighting and (probably) extra motoring.
The CO2 is coming from farmer’s dirt, especially in Mar, Apr & May is when they’re doing their cultivations and spreading nitrogen fertiliser around.
From June on, OCO sees CO2 drop as the crops grow and soak up CO2.
OCO is graphically showing depicting the NH ‘farmer’s calendar’
The CO2 in the sky is NOT, in any great amount, coming from the burning of coal, gas and oil.
Makes sense now why NASA are not saying much, and when they do they go into raptures of muddlement about drought, high temps and bacterial decomposition.
If your houseplant on the kitchen windowsill is OK with 200ppm (below which it dies) of CO2 and one cup of water per week – will giving it 2 cups of water per week make it grow faster?
(That’s before the CO2 in most folk’s kitchens and homes will be well into 4 figures normally.)
Does bringing a plant indoors create a triffid?
Water soluble nitrogen is causing the ‘global greening, just ask any farmer
The CO2 is coming from the burning of dirt and now OCO has been flying for a while, it shows that with crystal clarity.
btw, where the fook does that 50% number come from?
In English please.
Peta of N
Folks have ignored the OCO2 images because they confound the current entrenched carbon cycle theory. Similar to the AGW crowd, skeptics also have entrenched views that are hard to shift.
I remain the only person to provide comments and explanation on the OCO 2 images.
blozonehole.com
CO2 emissions are, I believe, Self Reported by each of the nations.
There has been considerable concern expressed about the accuracy of the whole range of emissions reported including CO2.
Personally I place little faith in these figures. The pause in global temperature ‘rise’ is now around 20 years and the level of concern over the accuracy of those figures and the level of manipulation which has been applied to temperature records is growing.
Perhaps claiming that man-made CO2 emissions have stopped rising is a convenient way of escaping the political and scientific backlash that is coming when man-made global warming is finally understood as the political exercise it always was.
Pause?
Where have you been the last three years?
/Jan
Read upon the word “transient” , Jan
20yr pause?
the surface has warmed
0.34 C in 20 years. (noaa data)
In your dreams …..
You mean homogenised data and continuous adjustments to lower earlier, factually recorded temperatures.
Australian records, an integral part of the global temperature records, have been exposed as not fit for purpose, in breach of WMO recording requirements, overvaluing maxima and under-recording minima. Low temps have been artificially capped at -10 deg C when actual temps have been far lower whilst maxima have been inflated by up to 2 deg C.
In the UK urban temps have regularly been 3 – 4 deg C higher than adjacent rural temps But the rural temps are then homogenised (adjusted) up towards the urban ones using a UHI adjustment of just 1.25 deg C meaning a gross overstatement of actual temperature.
The UK met office claimed the recent late August bank holiday as a new temperature record – but then had to admit that to achieve this they had, on the day they claimed this new record, decided (without any explanation) to reduce the previous record of decades earlier to enable this to become a ‘new’ temperature record.
NOAA “data” are packs of lies.
a lot of anecdotes, not
any science.
ps – adjustments reduce the
long-term warming trend. if they
increased it, i bet you’d
complain
about that too.
NOAA’s “data” are not science.
Once again Crackers, in your dreams , that is not what has been done
Adjustments have been made to the temperature records of the first half of the 20th century – always to Reduce them which makes warming appear bigger .
That has been done several times in the last 25 years and particularly as the ‘pause’ lengthened – any guesses why?
Each time NOAA scientists have explained their previous adjustments to reduce earlier temperatures need revising downwards to make them colder which of course made ‘warming’ seem greater. But of course each it was ‘admitted’ they had got it wrong before it was ‘but trust us, this time we do know.
Manipulation of temperature records accounts for about 1 deg C or around two thirds (66%+) of the claimed ‘warming’.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-06/1055532737.Bc.r.html
Whenever the subject of the increased CO2 as C13 is brought up – because this is what this article is about, emissions from fossil fuels – it always has comments that bring up “sinks” and the discrimination of C13 by it increasing in the environment. Globally there are more C3 plants than C4 plants and C3 plants discrimination of C13 isotopes…which is in reality a very small percentage of discrimination when more CO2 isotopes of less than C13 exist, plants will more readily utilize those and still take C13 in their photosynthesis that exists as a small fraction in our atmosphere. The majority of C4 plants are the plants that most fauna consume as food like corn, fruits and vegetables grown in warmer climates that more readily removes C13 in the warmer months. While those lesser C isotopes of Carbon Dioxide are removed by all flora more readily. That while C13 has a longer half life it increases because there are less C4 plants that would sink it. A warmer global environment would therefore be preferable for the health of the environment, by extending the growing season of C4 plants. Because people are not going to reduce in population and the food that all fauna requires needs to keep increasing. Unless some event causes a mass extinction.
Anthony-just a suggestion. I think a banner at the top of the page proclaiming the running time the world has (enjoyed?) with zero warming would be a good idea. Even the regulars on this site keep falling into the trap of accepting that we are warming when we are not.
If the CO2 GHG effect is real it seems to have run its course and no longer poses any threat. If it ever did.
And it didn’t!
Per capita emissions is a very odd metric, as it is only total emissions that is supposed to drive AGW. India’s population growth outstripping electrical generation and steel production will make per capita emissions go down, but that is NOT a good thing.
I hadn’t thought about that but I guess you could take a couple of million refuges and lower your carbon emissions per capita. Maybe that is the behind the metric selection 🙂
“Per capita emissions is a very odd metric”
What else? Should Danes not have to worry about emissions because China emits more?
Danes should definitely not worry about emissions. They contribute practically nothing anyway, but more importantly, more CO2 in the air is a good thing, not a cause for worry.
Twice current levels would be better, and triple best of all. More than 1200 ppm however won’t do much more to help green the planet.
Nick, you got it. Danes are irrelevant to global emissions compared to China. You can run the numbers. But, because of their dedication to your foolishness, Danes do have the highest electricity rates in Europe despite their Scandanavian interconnectors to flexed hydro to bail out their intermittency.
Nick,
You ask, “Should Danes not have to worry about emissions because China emits more?”
Short answer: No.
Long answer: see Rudd’s immediately above.
“Danes are irrelevant to global emissions compared to China.”
So no-one except China needs to do anything about emissions? Doesn’t sound like a way to get anything done. Now, I realise you don’t want anything done, but metrics like per capita are needed by those who do.
Nick,
Quite right. China is the only country that matters at the moment, since everywhere else CO2 emissions are static or falling.
But China and in future India are doing the world a favor by increasing CO2. What they do need to work on however is reducing real pollution, as the West has done.
CO2 however is not pollution but an essential trace gas vital to life on earth. Three times as much as now in our air would be ideal.
You could have decided per square metre of land saying each same area of the earth should emit at same level. The countries after all control the rules for that square metre.
The choice of Metric was based around humans because the politics behind it that the 3rd world countries had to be not impacted .. they have lots of people so it’s obvious which metric you choose.
Whether it was the right metric is another question altogether but it was the one that was chosen because it had a chance of flying because it was perceived as the most “human fair”.
I should say if you really want impact same as you do in business or warfare you go after the areas with the highest impact. You don’t worry about fairness and equality, you worry about outcomes. You also don’t take options like engineering to actively trying to remove the source of the problem.
My objection to Emission Control is it is half arsed it’s like the war on drugs it has zero chance of working because it doesn’t address the real problems and provides no real solution. Prohibition of anything has never worked not once on anything from Alcohol, Drugs, Nuclear Weapons or Chemical Weapons but somehow the righteous left has convinced itself that it will work on CO2.
I don’t worry about it because it’s doomed and all the money and political will in the world won’t change that.
First of all per captia is 1 a guess, and 2 more averaging to destroy accuracy.
Denmark has no idea how much it emits year on year, sales data is a bad proxy for measurements, averages are a bad replacement for accuracy
Extrapolate this uncertainty globally and consider India China African continent, South America, and you have NO idea what human emissions culmulative amount is.
Fact
ristvan
I suggest the reason why per capita CO2 missions are used in climate debates in certain countries is political
First line of argument is used by the Greens who realize there is not much of a basis to criticize high carbon fuel producing nations like Australia (with abundant coal and natural gas ) if our contributions to world emissions (1.3%) is used.
Hence in this country the Green- Left regularly refer to our per capita emissions which are high, as being a measure of our moral turpitude and global irresponsibility as they like to call it.
Also conversely the 1.5 billion Chinese plus the 1.3 billion Indians can and do argue that as their per capita emissions are very low, they have a”right” to catch up to the Western nations in per capita terms which given their huge populations means big increases in emissions in absolute terms.
But you are right. If one accepts the CO2- Global warming link then- in line with the old 80/20 rule- the main nations which contribute to AGW are China, Russia, Japan, the EU, the USA and increasingly India- are all probably responsible for at least 75 % of global CO2 emissions (acknowledging the uncertainties of measurement)
The numerous remainder nations are all down individually in the 0 to 1to 1.5 % range in absolute terms.
Australia Carbon Emissions are going up nicely 550.4 million tonnes and that is with out creative accounting, it is a lot higher than that in reality. You can see why the government isn’t keen on setting a clean energy target. We have a cute “carry over” number and some good land use accounting, we just need to find a few more places to hide the increase. I suspect it’s probably cheaper to just go and buy a batch of carbon credits but it probably isn’t allowed under the rules.
There is no time soon that our upper house isn’t going to be controlled by minorities and it doesn’t matter which party is in power there is no chance they will get any big reforms thru the parliament. The more they try to squeeze the public the more we vote for minorities and the Carbon dream gets further away.
“Global GHG emissions continue to be dominated by fossil carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which however show a slowdown trend since 2012, and were stalled for the third year in a row in 2016.”
But wait, CO2 has been very steadily rising for five years…
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
It’s almost like emissions are only loosely related to concentrations… isn’t this sort of an obvious problem for all sorts of existing emissions policy? Scenarios dating back at least as far as Hansen 1988 seem to assume this relationship is pretty strong.
I mean, come on, even the growth rate is higher! https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
This makes no sense… we know the absorption is also increasing… this requires emissions to be not just increasing but actually accelerating… is it time to reconsider the notion that maybe CO2 levels are only very weakly coupled to emissions?
higher ocean temperatures
mean less co2 absorption by the
ocean.
el ninos mean less carbon uptake,
because they dry out the tropics
which means less photosynthesis.
and
Damnation! My nefarious plot to destroy the world is falling behind.
Oh well, I am going to the coast this weekend – that’ll get my emission count up for the week.
Better leave the engine running.
Actually
Me feeling guilty abt my big diesel truck is what started me investigating the CO2 story…
For those that believe in AGW, this study completely ignores the primary greenhouse gas which dominates the radiant greenhouse effect and the total concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere..Not including the primary greenhouse gas makes this study bogus.
Which gas would that be. According to you.
Water vapor
H2O
the amount of water vapor in the
atmosphere only increases if the
temperature of the
atmosphere first increases (like
from co2).
the change is about 7% more
w.v. per
1 c of warming.
I do have some measurements of rh from weather stations but i would have to see if i can balance to zero latitude.
You guys are just guessing. Measuring rh is like measuring global T of the oceans..which average is correct ….?
Sorry. H2O is the wrong answer.
Current ozone level is able to deflect ca. 25% of all that is being deflected off from earth.
Bad news for plants. No news for the temperature of the earth.
Jack.
You did not see my comments?
weeds are
also plants.
So?
Farmers kill weeds all the time. You don’t need to apply more herbicide to kill more weeds, nor make more passes rodding.
crackers.. are you saying you are a plant?
‘However, the data until 2012 shows a steady increase in global GHG emissions, with an overall increase of 91% from 1970 to 2012.’
That doesn’t sound right to me. From ~280 ppm to ~400 ppm is a 0.012% increase in total atmospheric concentration, not 91%. A 91% increase in a very small quantity is still a very small quantity.
It is only 43% increase in CO2 and still only .012% of the atmosphere which can not influence any temperature because CO2 ,s heating potential is logarithmic {that means that for every doubling of CO2 the heating potential halves } and water vapor is around 4% of the atmosphere and must totally dominate.
The heat supposedly trapped by adding .012% is less than the margin of error
Average water vapor in the atmosphere is 0.48%. Not 4%
Water vapor concentrates in the tropics over the oceans.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Actually, Henryp, the lower troposphere atmospheric water vapor range is from near zero (Antarctica) to about 4% on tropical islands. Declines with altitude lapse rate, but not per Clausius/Clapeyron because of convective processes (something AR4 WG1 black box 8.1 got completely wrong). The lower troposphere median is about 1.8% and the average is about 2%. Amounts to a little over 25mm of precipitable troposphere water, varying a bit year to year. A little google foo will help get your facts straight.
Ristvan
You say it is 2 %.
Your exact source is?
NASA AIRS satellite mission. And, I said about, cause varies year to year a bit as NASA tries to explain.
Now, do your own homework, which was the sole point of my original comment to you. Which from your rejoinder, you are apparently still incapable of doing. I aint gonna do it for you, cause unless you do it yourself you aint gonna learn nuttin.
Water vapor concentrates in the tropics.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Thanks Ristvan
With the rainfall we have had in New Zealand this year I thought we would have 4% water vapor .Thanks for the correction ,I will file that
I do have some measurements of rh from weather stations but i would have to see if i can balance to zero latitude.
You guys are just guessing. Measuring rh is like measuring global T of the oceans..which average is correct ….?
Henryp
Richard Lizdens quote of the century ” Believing that CO2 controls the earths temperature is like believing in magic’
Water at two percent of the atmosphere is fifty times more prevalent than CO2 and has to smother any warming caused by CO2
Do you ever experience frosts .With the urban heat effect the suns warmth is retained in the concrete and roads and frosts are not as severe or as many as in the country side .
Clear night the heat rises from the land and the temperature drops to below 5 degrees Celsius and we get a grass frost . We have exactly the same conditions during the day but cloud comes in before sunset .The clouds hold in the heat that is rising and the temperature stays above 5 degrees .Water vapor and the resultant clouds have a far greater effect on temperature than CO2
Wasn’t there a similar thread on this same report just two weeks ago?
The plants will not be happy with this reduction in their nutrition from CO2.
Stalled is unfortunate. Earth is impoverished for CO2. Optimum CO2 level is about 3X present.
If CO2 levels are indeed flattening out, someone should tell the new prime minister of New Zealand:
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/10/20/jacinda-ardern-commits-new-zealand-zero-carbon-2050/
Quote:
‘….New Zealand’s new prime minister Jacinda Ardern has committed the country to erasing its carbon footprint by the middle of the century.
The Labour leader, who brokered a coalition with the populist right New Zealand First party on Thursday, said on Friday that addressing climate change would be among her top priorities.
Ardern, who becomes the world’s youngest female leader, said: “I do anticipate that we will be a government, as I said during the campaign, that will be absolutely focused on the challenge of climate change.”…’.
Zero carbon emissions by 2050. Dreamers can dream foolish dreams….
They would have to stop farming.
CD in Wisconsin,
News gets around the world .Taxinda Adern is our new Prime Minister with the help of our MMP voting system ..During the campaign before the election she was going to tax everything but she pulled back as her support was softening in the polls so she then announced that a committee would examine the effects before the taxes were implemented ..She seems to be committed to taxing water that if not stored in dams runs out to sea and she wants to bring in an Emission Trading Scheme that will tax our farmers for methane emissions from farmed livestock .
I am not aware that any other country in the world taxes their farmers for livestock emissions .Ninety percent of our meat wool and dairy production is exported to the world .
Why would you do this to your export sector when New Zealand rely s exports and we have to compete with subsidized surplus production being dumped on the world market from Northern hemisphere nations
Hopefully her coalition partner Winston Peters (who was the son of a share milker in Northland ) might be able to talk a bit of sense into an empty head .
Didn’t NZ voters learn any lessons from electing major whack job David Lange at age 42?
Now you have an even loonier PM aged 37.
“gwan October 20, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Taxinda Adern is our new Prime Minister with the help of our MMP voting system ..During the campaign before the election she was going to tax everything…”
Everything *IS* taxed in NZ. Everything attracts a GST of 15% (Well ok, there are a few exempt items, like certain sanitary products).
I find it rather worrying for NZers that the thug Winston Peters held the balance of power. What are you guys thinking? I have seen this thug throw punches on Courtenay Place and falling, drunk, out of a taxi.
“CD in Wisconsin October 20, 2017 at 3:01 pm”
There was an article at the Sydney Morning Herald stating that many NZers in Aus are returning to NZ. Previously there was a net outflow from NZ to Aus of about 40,000 people per year. I think once this loon gets her policies in place we’ll see that outflow increase.
If I read the topmost graphic correctly, The sum of US, EU and Russian emissions ~= China emissions @ur momisugly 35 Gt/Yr. Interesting.
The country data are on the left. Very approximately:
Russia: ~1+ Gton CO2 per year
EU: ~3
US: ~4
Total: ~8+
China: ~11-
If the numbers instead be closer to 2, 4 and 5 Gton each, then China’s output is about equal to the three others’ combined.
Look – either the Emperor is wearing clothes OR he is stark b*ll*ck naked. Can we just stop with the graphs about the thickness of the cloth and get back to the main point.
Is there such a thing as a GHG or not? Some will argue yes, some will argue no. This has been going on for long enough now. What we want is some proper brain power applied to devising experiments in lab or field and observations to get us further down the path of deciding this FUNDAMENTAL question. We see the arguments on both sides. It needs resolving otherwise everything else could be a complete waste of time, effort and money.
You have to start at the beginning if you want to sort this out. There appear to be perfectly valid arguments on both sides. Lets start ripping them to shreds and see what we find.
Yes, there is such a thing. H2O, CO2 and some other molecules do indeed slow IR photons on their way toward space through the air.
The issue is how much, given probably net negative feeback effects. The net GHG effect of increasing CO2 from three molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules to four over the past century or so is demonstrably negligible, at best.
Thinking of getting this plate for my Chevy P/U merely to make Liberal heads explode.
http://i66.tinypic.com/2vu0feq.png
Bottom line: slowing the rise of CO2 emitted has little effect on the rise of CO2. You need to stop it entirely. And that may not be enuf, at least in the short term (100-200 years).
Why on earth would you want to stop the rise in CO2, which has contributed so much to keeping the world fed, clothed and sheltered since the end of WWII?
Why are you so stupid?
Reallyskepical please stop breathing and adding more CO2 to the environment than you inhaled. For that matter I hope you are not breeding and having offspring either to “save the planet” by your ideologies.
Why are you so stupid and ignorant?
I asked you a question based upon the scientific fact that Earth has greened thanks to more plant food in the air. This beneficial development has led to the production of more food and fiber.
What do you have against people eating and breathing?
Are Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever, his colleagues Freeman Dyson, heir to Einstein, and Will Happer also stupid? To name but three who have spoken out in favor of CO2 for its greening of our planet.
I see that the troll is now complaining that he has been outed as being a troll,since he never disputes ANY science papers posted.
Gabro,
“I grew up and as an adult helped grow crops of soft white winter wheat in Palouse series soils, while also pursuing an academic career. The ag experiment station of which I speak lies NNE of Pendleton, OR, but the most important work on new strains has been done at WSU, also on Palouse series soils, but in far southeastern WA state.”
I have been at the Prosser station a number of times,been on field trips in the Palouse hills as part of my college education back in the early 1980’s. Roberts doesn’t seem to realize he is making a fool of himself with his stupid comments,which never addresses the science of the links posted. That is why I now call him a troll,since he DEFLECTS over and over,avoiding a real debate.
He brings up the following,
Confounding (which many science papers already addresses,if the fool bother to read them)
Blog (which are run by real scientists who provide the original source to the research they comment on,which Roberts never noticed)
Troll (He is being called a troll,since avoids a real debate with his quick deflecting,disputes a blog,which are run by scientists)
The troll doesn’t know how to make a cogent comment.
Sunsettommy October 20, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Good on you for the Prosser station.
A now lamentably dead buddy of mine from a family friendship going back to the 19th century met his wife at WSU thanks to the Prosser station, from which town she originated.
Robert is not only clueless, but persistently so, which does indeed render him a troll, to his undying shame.
Only a CACA acolyte could possibly question the fertilizing effect of CO2 on most major crop plants and all trees. Just shows how antiscientific is the whole CACA movement.
Hey totallygullible, have YOU stop all use of anything that produces CO2?
Or are you just mouthing hypocritical platitudes again.
To include exhaling?
and Why are you so stupid?
Really,
Seriously, are you so ignorant that you don’t know that more CO2 has been hugely beneficial, and that more would better?
Poor totallygullible..
the AGW apparatchik KNOWS that its WHOLE EXISTENCE relies totally on CO2.
How that must hurt ! 🙂
afonzarelli October 21, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Actually, it might have been interesting to see what Patrick Moore had to say in defense of photosynthesis d@nier Robert, who also libels David Middleton as in the pay of Big Oil.
Talldave2,
The rise in CO2 during the last glacial termination and onset of the Holocene surely contributed to the rise of agriculture. The first crop plants domesticated were all C3. Increase in trees and shrubs, all C3 plants, also helped develop early horticulture and settled lifestyles.
Among C3 crops are most small-seeded cereals such as rice (Oryza sativa), wheat (Triticum spp.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), rye (Secale cereale) and oat (Avena sativa). Among legumes soybean (Gycine max) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) are C3. So are sugar beet (Beta vulgaris), spinach (Spinacea oleracea) potato (Solanum tuberosum). Fiber source cotton (Gossypium spp.) and popular drug tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) are also C3 plants.
Cultivation was well along in the world before Mexicans domesticated the C4 plant corn (Zea mays) in a great feat of genetic engineering. Sugar cane, millet and sorghum are C4 too.
Sorry I put the above in the wrong place, given the long string in which Talldave2 posted below at talldave2 October 21, 2017 at 9:34 pm.
I should add that some now think that rice was the first domesticated grain. This is plausible, since, as a wetland plant, it might have benefited from locally enriched CO2. Microbes in swamps and bogs break methane and oxygen down into CO2 and water.
That is interesting!
Gabro,
I agree it’s a very appealing theory on a number of grounds… I hope we get to see a lot more research on it in the near future. There’s very little about climate theories than can be directly tested, but we can put plants in tents all we like 🙂
The strong version of this theory suggests that humans could not have developed agriculture or civilization without that rise in CO2… and that falling CO2 in the next Ice Age might prevent such agriculture even in areas that are still warm enough for it. Chilling!
Gabro — specifically, it would be interesting to see more results on CO2 deprivation… these are presumably somewhat more difficult to arrange than CO2 enrichment, but the implications are fascinating. I know some results exist (or at least I was able to find some a couple years ago) but more replication might flesh this theory out a bit.
Actually.. You can take any study that uses current levels of Carbon Dioxide and the increased levels that produce larger healthier flora as what carbon dioxide deprivation looks like.
Suggest you educate yourself:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
For C3 crop plants, each 10 ppm increase in CO2 boosts growth by about one percent. For trees and shrubs, the effect is even greater.
Thus the 120 ppm rise in plant food in the air since AD 1850 accounts for an ~12% increase in crop plant growth and even more for trees.
Why don’t you want people to eat, be clothed and sheltered? I guess it’s true that anti-human Green Meanies want population to revert to mid-19th century levels, or lower.
Increased CO2 also accelerates the growth of weeds. More weeds mean less crop yield.
As I’ve noted previously, farmers are already killing weeds. They need not use more herbicide to kill more weeds, nor make more passes with their rod weeders.
More CO2 is only better for agriculture and forestry. It has no downsides.
Crop yields have increased significantly around the world.
What farmer doesn’t know ow to control weeds…. seriously.
>>
Robert Kernodle
October 20, 2017 at 6:33 pm
Increased CO2 also accelerates the growth of weeds. More weeds mean less crop yield.
<<
Yeah, let’s get rid of CO2 because there are too many weeds on the planet. And just when I thought I’ve heard every argument against CO2.
Jim
Gabro and AndyG55, both of you know full well that correlation is not causation. If either of you ascribe increased yields to an increased concentration of atmospheric CO2, you’ve ignore all the other factors that come into play when dealing with crop yield such as improved irrigation, genetic hybridization, chemical fertilization, etc.
Masterson, I’m not arguing against CO2, I’m arguing that confusing correlation with causation is a grave error.
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 6:58 pm
Are you seriously this uneducated?
Increases in crop yield have come from many causes, but the portion from CO2 is not a matter of speculation, but measurement. In lab and field trial after trial, the effect of more CO2 on C3 plants has been ascertained in great detail.
Photosynthesis is a fact, and the effect of more CO2 on the process in crops and trees has been studied up the ying yang.
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 7:01 pm
You completely fail to grasp reality.
It’s not that there is a correlation between more CO2 and more vegetation. It is the fact that the effect of more CO2 on plant growth can be directly measured for each species of plant.
Gabro says: “Increases in crop yield have come from many causes.”
…
Thank you.
…
Now, please provide all of us the stastical ANOVA study that excludes all the other factors (irrigation, fertilizer, farming techniques, genetics) that show that the rise in yields is due exclusively to CO2
…
PS, ANOVA= “Analysis of variance”
stastical=statistical
Robert,
The causation is not in doubt. We know precisely how much plant growth is enhanced by CO2 from studies which hold all other factors equal.
Please see my link on the ideal level of CO2 for real greenhouses.
How could you possibly presume to comment here without knowing that scientists have precisely and accurately measured the amount of increased plant growth from increasing increments of CO2?
What part of photosynthesis don’t you understand?
>>
. . . that show that the rise in yields is due exclusively to CO2
<<
Why do commercial green houses raise their CO2 levels to 1000 ppm? For the green house effect?
Jim
Gabro, crop yields in Death Valley have not increased. What part of irrigation don’t you understand?
Masterson, the bulk of human foodstuffs are not grown in “commercial greenhouses.”
Robert,
Can you really possibly be this dense, or are you just acting to waste time?
Of the many causes of crop yield increases since WWII, we know precisely what portion is attributable to CO2. Why is this fact so hard for you to grasp?
This fact has been known ever since it was discovered that photosynthesis uses a photon of sunlight to break apart a water molecule taken up by the roots of a plant from the ground, the H atoms of which then attach in the dark reactions to a CO2 molecule to make sugar.
More CO2 also has the advantage of allowing plants to make more sugar with less water, since their leaf stomata need stay open for less time, reducing transpiration.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378377483900756
This is hardly ground-breaking science. Dunno how you missed it.
Why is it so tough for you to realize that of the various causes for higher crop and forest production since 1945, the share thanks to more CO2 is well known?
“Of the many causes of crop yield increases since WWII, we know precisely what portion is attributable to CO2”
…
Nope….per the link you provided…..in the Abstract the first two words are “Probable effects”
…
Do you, or do you not understand the definition of “probable”
…
LOL!!!!
Robert,
Causation, not just correlation, based upon actual science:
http://co2science.org/education/experiments/center_exp/experiment3/figures/final_fig1.jpg
Gabro, please tell me how you differentiate the effects on crop yields between the introduction of “Roundup resilient” crops (Monsanto) versus the increase in atmospheric CO2…….
..
It is 20/80% or is it 30/70% or maybe 40/60%
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 7:33 pm
The probable effects were based upon estimates of CO2 in future from 1983. Please read the article. The effects of more CO2 were known even then.
The issue was the amount of future CO2, not the effects of more CO2 on plants.
You are pathetic.
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You are willfully obtuse.
Again and again I explain to you that the specific effects of more CO2 are known for each species of commercial plant.
The overall increase in production of course stems from fertilizer use, irrigation and other causes, but that doesn’t change the fact that agronomists know precisely how much is attributable to more CO2.
Why is this simply fact so hard for you to grasp?
Gabro, there is no disputing the results of a study where ONE variable is shown to affect plant growth. The problem you have is to show that all the OTHER variables involved in crop yield have remained constant while CO2 levels have increased.
…
Please study this: “Confounding Factors/Variables” : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
” the fact that agronomists know precisely how much is attributable to more CO2.”
..
Citation/link please.
Robert,
Scientists have studied the effect of more CO2 on all the major crops in controlled experiments. Why is this so hard for you to understand.
For instance, wheat grows optimally at just under 1000 ppm, while some other crops and especially trees do better at up to 1200 ppm. These parameters are known in great detail, as to growth of roots, stalks and leaves.
I was a soft white winter wheat farmer on the Columbia Plateau, close to the experiment station which produced the wonder strains which have fed the world, so this 2015 result is most interesting to me.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26253981
The optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for the growth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum).
Abstract
This study examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat with growth chambers where the CO2 concentration was controlled at 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 ppm respectively. I found that initial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration dramatically enhanced winter wheat growth through the CO2 fertilization effect. However, this CO2 fertilization effect was substantially compromised with further increase in CO2 concentration, demonstrating an optimal CO2 concentration of 889.6, 909.4, and 894.2 ppm for aboveground, belowground, and total biomass, respectively, and 967.8 ppm for leaf photosynthesis.
LMAO @ur momisugly Gabro
…
…
..
” with growth chambers”
…
HA HA HA
….
How much corn is produced in “growth chambers” ????
…
Do they grow enough to feed two, or three steer?
Open air experiment on pine tree growth from Duke:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980814065506.htm
Twelve percent more growth from CO2 levels expected in 2050 v. actual in 1998.
Gabro, do you really need me to explain the difference to you between what is done in a laboratory, and what is done in the corn fields of Iowa?
Robert,
You’re simply making a fool of yourself by d@nying the fact that more CO2 means more C3 vegetation. It’s simply biology, ie photosynthesis.
LMAO @ur momisugly Gabro: ” expected in 2050 ”
…
Isn’t the Arctic supposed to be ice free in 2050 also?
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 7:53 pm
No, because you’re a willful ignoramus.
Controlled experiments show the isolated effect of CO2. That won’t change in the field.
BTW, corn is a C4 plant. Your total ignorance is showing again.
Gabro, you are correct, under laboratory conditions, “more CO2 means more C3 vegetation.”
…
However, as I have shown in a previous example, all of the increased CO2 we now have in our atmosphere has not increased crop yields in Death Valley.
Robert,
You just keep getting more an more pathetic. Give it up. You lose, because you know nothing of elementary biology.
The year 2050 was selected as a CO2 level, not for whatever its other effects might be.
But no, the Arctic will not be ice free in 2050. Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012, and will likely keep doing so for another 25 or 30 years. It’s a natural cycle. By 2050, we should be back in a declining Arctic sea ice regime, just beginning, like the 1980s.
Gabro says: “you’re a willful ignoramus”
…
Name calling is not helping your argument.
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 7:58 pm
Yes, where crops weren’t grown in 1980 and aren’t grown now, the yields haven’t increased. They are still zero.
Do you have a point to make, or are you still just wasting everyone’s time with your ignorant spew?
Robert,
Not name calling. Just a fact.
You willfully won’t read papers which would educate you and end your obvious ignorance.
Hence, you’re a willful ignoramus.
Gabro says: “But no, the Arctic will not be ice free in 2050.”
…
Now, I have two responses to this statement.
..
1) Please provide me with a shipping address, I’ll send you a bottle of Windex that you can use to clean your crystal ball.
..
2) Please re-boot the computer you are running your MODEL of Arctic ice on…..the results may not be significant.
I see that Robert Kernodle,is being silly since he keeps IGNORING published science research over and over,because he wants to play his stupid word games. CO2 science has many papers on controlled growth to determine how much impact ADDITIONAL CO2 has on plant growth.
Here are examples based Plant Photosynthesis (Net CO2 Exchange Rate)
Responses to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment:
Zea mays L. [Corn]
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/z/zeam.php
Triticum durum [Wheat, Durum]
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/t/triticumd.php
I bet he has NEVER grown fields of wheat like Gabro has,who lives only 50 miles or so away from where I live. I am quite familiar with the Columbia basin,having lived there since the 1960’s,it is a hot dry climate with sandy soils and low in Organic matter.
Large greenhouses deliberately increase interior CO2 levels because it is well known to accelerate growth of nursery stock. The CO2 generators are not cheap either,thus the growth increase has to be significant,which is why they often have it around 1200-1500 ppm levels.
You need to drop your pretzel comments.
Gabro says: “Hence, you’re a willful ignoramus.”
…
Now, Gabro, we all know that doing the same thing (name calling) over and over and expecting different results is …….not what you should be doing in a public place.
LOL @ur momisugly Sunsettommy
….
” published science research ”
…
http://www.co2science.org is a blog
….
LOL
…
LOL
….
“weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles,”
…
Reference: http://www.co2science.org/about/mission.php
…
Editorials and Reviews.
..
nuff-said
Notice that this troll ignored Gabro’s GREENHOUSE link with a stupid comment,showing his ignorance of standard farming methods in dealing with weeds:
“Robert Kernodle
October 20, 2017 at 6:33 pm Edit
Increased CO2 also accelerates the growth of weeds. More weeds mean less crop yield.”
He doesn’t seem to realize farmers have been dealing with weeds for many decades,it is a “solved” problem as long as the Farmer employs his effort on them. Weeds is a minor problem at best and often a ZERO problem.
So he ignores results of INDOOR greenhouse research to deflect to outdoor unspecified weed problem.
You are looking bad, Robert.
Robert,
Your willful ignorance is of biblical proportions, since you d@ny the fact of photosynthesis.
More CO2 necessarily means more sugar, up to the limit of water available. But more CO2 also necessarily means more water will be available, since stomata need stay open for less time to take in the same amount of CO2.
This theoretical is shown to be true in actuality by every experiment ever run on C3 plants and photosynthesis. You are, as I said, just making a fool of yourself.
Sunsettommy October 20, 2017 at 8:08 pm
I grew up and as an adult helped grow crops of soft white winter wheat in Palouse series soils, while also pursuing an academic career. The ag experiment station of which I speak lies NNE of Pendleton, OR, but the most important work on new strains has been done at WSU, also on Palouse series soils, but in far southeastern WA state.
Like most CACA adherents, Robert can’t handle the truth.
Sunsettommy October 20, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Robert is looking as he is, ie a willful ignoramus troll.
Sunsettommy now joins Gabro in name calling: “this troll”
…
Isn’t it funny that when someone points out that a poster’s links are garbage, it earns them the dubious distinction of an ad-hominem (name calling) attack.
Robert is now a confirmed troll since the TWO examples I posted are based on actual published science research, which he completely ignores in his desperate deflection to whining that it is a blog:
“LOL @ur momisugly Sunsettommy
….
” published science research ”
…
http://www.co2science.org is a blog
….
LOL
…
LOL
….
“weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles,”
…
Reference: http://www.co2science.org/about/mission.php
…
Editorials and Reviews.
..
nuff-said”
You said nothing Troll Robert, here are the links to the actual science papers you ignored:
Photosynthesis (Net CO2 Exchange Rate) References
Zea mays L. [Corn]
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/z/ref/zeam_ref.php
and,
Photosynthesis (Net CO2 Exchange Rate) References
Triticum durum [Wheat, Durum]
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/t/ref/triticumd_ref.php
The published papers and their results are real,you didn’t show they were wrong at all.
Still want to keep digging deeper?
Gabro, show me the study that attributes GLOBAL crop yields to CO2 concentrations.
…
The study has to show that irrigation, breeding, fertilizers and farming practices are not responsible for the yields.
…
So simple you shouldn’t have a problem right?
Sunsettommy ….. co2science.org is a blog.
….
If you wrote a paper and used a blog as a citation, you’d be a laughingstock.
(SNIPPED) MOD
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 8:33 pm
I’ve repeatedly showed you the share of global crop increases attributable to CO2, based upon elementary biophysics confirmed by experiment and observation.
You’re just wasting everyone’s time.
Gabro, all you have shown is that under laboratory conditions, that CO2 enhances plant growth. You have not shown that global crop yields have been affected by CO2.
…
Do you understand statistics and measurement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
Gee whiz, one of my comments got snipped. (SNIPPED)
(You are fast wearing out your welcome here) MOD
Robert,
I’ve showed you that C3 plants cannot help but increase their growth under more CO2.
What countervailing factors do you imagine could possibly vitiate this fact?
That more CO2 means more growth with less water is also an incontrovertible fact.
The onus is on you to show how more CO2 could not lead to more vegetation on earth, as has been observed. Even where there has been no irrigation, no use of pesticides or no fertilizers, the planet has greened.
As I said, you’re just making a laughingstock of yourself. But as my popular sociology prof at Stanford used to say, there are in fact people who enjoy hurting themselves.
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 9:00 pm
No one stooped to any low level. We merely accurately described you as a troll and willful ignoramus.
Gabro, I did not call you names. Yet you are unable to provide me with a study/paper/evidence that global crop yields have benefited from increased CO2.
…
You can’t.
(SNIPPED) MOD
Can someone explain to me why Gabro can call Robert names, yet Robert gets snipped?
(Stay out of it,not your problem) MOD
(SNIPPED)
(Your comment was completely off topic,let the MODS handle it) MOD
(Go read Roberts, ad hom comment that was left untouched, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/20/deepwater-horizon-epillog/#comment-2642223 ,you going to complain that it wasn’t snipped?) MOD
Censorship in action.
“co2science.org is a blog.”
A blog that collates THOUSANDS of peer reviewed scientific studies. !
CO2 is an absolutely essential part of the carbon cycle that supplies for ALL life on Earth
Plants do very little growing below about 250ppm
Plants THRIVE when levels are 1000+ppm
VERIFIED SCIENTIFIC FACTS. !!
GET OVER IT !!
“Increased CO2 also accelerates the growth of weeds.”
And here you are. A pointless non-thinking organic growth.
Anyone got some RoundUp ?
OMG!!! Patrick Moore just got snipped(!)
Mark, blogs are monarchies. (no one here owes anything to anybody) If you don’t like it, then go get your own blog…
Robert Kernodle October 20, 2017 at 8:33 pm
How could more CO2 not fertilize vegetation everywhere, since it is supposedly well mixed:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments
This area of study offers the opportunity for a lot of empirical testing. Sort of fascinating that it might even explain the rise of agriculture itself (though we probably don’t know enough to say that yet).
And the general increase in the whole world’s biosphere, even the part NOT under direct human influence, ie crops, shows that it is highly likely to be CO2 fertilization and slight warming causing a substantial amount of the extra biosphere growth and hence crop yield.
Dr. Moore makes crystal clear his conclusion that humans are saving most of the biosphere by releasing CO2 otherwise effectively sequestered.
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/
So I suppose that his snipped comment pointed out to Robert how profoundly ignorant is his deni@l of photosynthesis and the greening of the planet thanks to more plant food in the air.
That there are other reasons for increasingly bountiful harvests as well as man-made CO2 in now way detracts from the fact that our freeing trapped CO2 has been essential in the increased growth of crops, forests, grasslands and all C3 vegetation on land. This is especially true in areas, like the Sahel, which were previously too dry tor greenery to grow there.
As has been observed over and over, under higher CO2 regimes, plants need fewer stomata to take in the CO2 the require, so less water is lost via transpiration.
But from the Moderator’s comment, it appears that Dr. Moore came to Robert’s defense.
Which is strange, since it now occurs to me that I gave Robert too much credit, by assuming that he understood photosynthesis. Being ignorant of that process would explain his failure to grasp the greening on the planet under more CO2.
So, for Robert’s benefit, here it is in a nutshell. Land plants take water up from the ground through their roots. In their chloroplasts, they use a photon of sunlight to break a molecule of water into hydrogen (actually protons, ie positive ions) and oxygen atoms. In the dark reactions, the combine the free H with CO2 to produce the carbohydrates (sugars) which plants use for food.
Thus, more CO2 in the air means more carbohydrate and less water use, because of less transpiration from stomata being open less time or there being need for fewer of them.
define “it”
“You need to stop it entirely”
what do you suggest, killing all plant life, covering the oceans in a tarp and shutting down all geological activity, because there is 97% of emissions
“Global GHG emissions continue to be dominated by fossil carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,…”
I’m just curious, but do we monitor human water vapor emissions?
JohnWho,
Not that I know, but I once calculated it a long time ago. It was completely negligible, except at huge point sources like cooling towers of power plants, the more that temperature is the limiting factor and any extra H2O is raining out if the maximum content is reached with an average turnover of a few days…
“Global GHG emissions continue to be dominated by fossil carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,…”
is a patently false claim. Our emissions are a mere fraction of the total, whomever wrote that sentence should always be accompanied by an adult when on when typing
“any extra H2O is raining out if the maximum content is reached with an average turnover of a few days…”
Correct Ferd,
Human CO2 and H2O emissions are TOTALLY INSIGNIFICANT against the constant turn-around of natural H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Glad you finally realise that. 🙂
AndyG55,
You forgot one important point: the difference in decay rate between some extra water above the maximum water content of the atmosphere and some extra CO2 above the dynamic equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean surface.
For any extra water vapor the decay rate is a matter of days.
For any extra CO2, the e-fold decay rate is about 51 years, or a half life time of ~35 years.
The latter is the main origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: the CO2 pressure related decay rate is too slow to remove all human emissions in the same year as emitted, while the natural cycle is totally dependent of (seasonal) temperature changes, hardly pressure dependent.
Why does the chart with this story not have a line showing emissions from volcanoes and thermal vents? Isn’t that a major source of atmospheric CO2? If we are concerned about CO2 concentrations, shouldn’t we be concerned about it regardless of source?
Nechit,
Volcanic emissions are around 1% of human emissions and indeed also one-way. That would increase the CO2 levels of the atmosphere with 2-3 ppmv at steady state. But as much of that CO2 is recycled from subduction of carbonate deposits, the real impact is near zero…
Co2 going down, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, WE had the hottest year on record! (sarc off)
Interesting: Either the oceans are getting colder, the plants are healthier or the world economy is in a down turn. Or a combination of all three.
Or China has cut back on concrete production since the completion of the Three Gorges Dam.
Is there a prominent physicist with a PhD who is prepared to state (or prove) whether methane at 1800ppb (0.00018% of the air) has any effect on climate?
jayman
I have challenged the trolls that infest these blogs to prove that methane emissions from live stock can ever warm the world more than .05 degrees in the next 20 years .Not one person has come forward with any proof whatsoever .The facts are that methane emissions from livestock are cyclic and are oxidized in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and H2O and the life of methane in the atmosphere is 8.4 years .CO2 and H2O are exactly what is required to grow fodder for livestock and so the cycle continues .Methane is slowly increasing but the increase is not coming from livestock .As I have pointed out before a molecule of CO2 contains one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen and a molecule of methane contains one atom of carbon and four atoms of hydrogen .This means that at any given time there is no more carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 or CH4 from livestock emissions than at any other time in the past .
As the methane is continuously oxidizing into CO2 there cannot be any effect at all.
This is so simple because every thing that livestock eat has grown by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere