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
Do you guys think this whole thing was an attempt by Goldman Sachs to commodify Carbon and have it traded on the stock market?
Ferdinand
…..transferring energy to these molecules, thus increasing the temperature of the air.
Please explain to me how that works? Since O2 and N2 is permeable to to re-radiated shine of the H2O and CO2?
henryp, That’s a good question. I’ll venture an answer, even though you did not direct the question to me.
One way that molecules can transfer heat to each other is by collision. So that is how O2 and N2 could gain heat by collision with H20 and CO2.
But they could also gain heat by the “re-radiated shine” from the H2O and CO2. This is because the H2O and CO2 would be re-radiating the shine as infrared, and not in the original wavelength of the “shine”.
It’s important to note that when a body absorbs electromagnetic radiation and re-emits it, the re-emitted radiation is not necessarily in the same wavelength as the absorbed radiation. The wavelength of the radiation that a body emits depends on the temperature of that body; the hotter the body, the shorter the wavelength. That is why the sun emits short wavelength radiation (visible light, ultraviolet radiation, and some infrared) while the earth, which is far cooler, emits mostly infrared.
This principle makes the greenhouse effect possible. The atmosphere is transparent to most short wavelength radiation coming from the sun, but is not transparent to the infrared radiation that the earth emits after absorbing visible light, etc.
Actually, much incident sunlight is also in the IR range.
OK. I will think about it and get back to you on that. But you guys must tell me first whether the net effect of more ozone in the atmosphere is that of warming or cooling. If you chose cooling, would you then agree with me that ozone is not a GHG but rather an anti green house gas?
Henryp
Not so simple as you may think.
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_5_1.htm
“Good up high, bad near by.” it is a GHG in the troposphere where it is just a trace gas. But it is what blocks the a lot of the UV radiation from entering the troposphere – along with Oxygen it is in constant change from one to the other.
No. Nonsense. [no sense]. There is no good or bad ozone. It behaves the same, either if hit by sunshine at 1 km height or at 40 km.
Same with the earthshine. The way from the top to the bottom is the same as from the bottom to the top.
As per my determinations (see graph) , ozone has been going up both in the Nh and the Sh since about 1995. .And as you can see it seems to follow a sine wave, similar to that of the solar polar magnetic field strengths. As I said, ozone, peroxide and N-oxide are manufactured from the most energetic particles from the sun. Without we’d be dead,e.g. don’t go to Mars…
So, I repeat my question: what would be the net result of more ozone in the atmosphere: warming or cooling?
Let me know.
henryp,
As Jesse already said, that is a matter of collisions between an excited CO2 or H2O molecule and O2 or N2. That shifts the energy of the CO2 molecule to the others and CO2/H20 has not enough energy left to re-radiate. Thus the air temperature increases, as “temperature” is the average kinetic energy of all molecules in a gas.
As Bart said, that is not only one-way: if there are collissions between “hot” O2 and N2 molecules with CO2, the latter can be excited and can send out an IR photon in its own wavelength.
Which one is leading is a matter of average gas temperature and gas density. In the troposphere more CO2 leads to warming, in the stratosphere to cooling.
Some background:
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1672337
BTW, do you know the pages of Barrett & Bellamy? Very interesting in-depth analysis of radiation by GHGs:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/index.htm
Ok. So we are all agreed now that more ozone prevents more UV (heat) coming into the oceans.It is an anti greenhouse effect.
Hence, we do know of at least one mechanism on why it is [has started] cooling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/28/inconvenient-oceans-continue-to-cool/
On the CO2, Ferdinand says
in the troposphere more CO2 leads to warming, in the stratosphere to cooling.
end quote
As I said, it does not matter what happens at different layers of the atmosphere. The sun’s and the earth’s emission hits the gas the same way, wherever, In any case, various measurements have established that the CO2 mixes quickly to about the same concentration everywhere in the atmosphere.
I already proved that the CO2 deflects some light from the sun and more of it means that more light will be back radiated to space. The only absorption in earth’s spectrum is 14-15 um and it is already doubtful that the energy back radiated to earth by the CO2 is even equal to the amount back radiated 0-5 um.
There is another consideration that we must make in the case of CO2. We know for sure that photosynthesis extracts energy from the atmosphere. We also know that earth has been greening quite dramatically over the past decades, both on land and in the oceans. As CO2 takes part in photosynthesis it stands to reason that we must argue that more life i.e. the CO2, is cooling the ocean and land.
Given all these facts it stands to reason that I will argue that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere must be cooling rather than warming, or, at the very least, is close to zero.
OTOH the extra greenery traps some moisture on land and that? traps some heat but we must not confuse issues, i.e. causes and effects.
Which brings us to the H2O….
Some other time perhaps.
https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%E2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
CO2 does not evenly mix in the atmosphere… Ever. CO2 loses the heat it takes in, in milliseconds. And yes when during photosynthesis heat is removed from the air but by transferring to heat generated by the flora. There is a cooling effect where CO2 is in high concentrations – by displacing the other lighter gases – like how dry ice is formed out of CO2…that can lead to fast drops in temperature. Such as high concentrations of CO2 in forested areas being hot during the sunlight hours that drop temperature after sunset, due to the fast release of heat from the molecules and the stopping of photosynthesis. Sunlight hours being less than darkness hours over the majority of Earth allow for more cooling of the Atmosphere. So the higher the Ozone content the more the sunlight is blocking UV but not IR that causes CO2 and Water Vapor to heat up for the shortest period during where the sun is shining then moves into darkness where it cools over a longer time. But those are just 2 parts of the total atmosphere where many others have their cooling and warming affects. The Solar Minimum and Earths reduced Magnetic Field are the greatest part of it all.
johchi
CO2 is heavier than air but it quickly diffuses.
most stations measure around 400 ppmv now with each station an almost constant deviation from each other, as well as depending on season, Check NOAA/
I believe just about anybody that has been on WUWT understands those variables. Just as their are few that deny that CO2 has gradually increased since those have been recording the measurements. And the spectrum of those concentrations of CO2 as taken from space show that CO2 is not uniformly distributed. At surface level higher concentrations are in the lower elevations of the troposphere do to gravity and pretty much becomes thinner at high mountains tree lines where they don’t support life of larger flora…and it is much colder above those elevations even in summer of that hemisphere. There is CO2 above 2X global average in forested areas than in most cities that burn fossil fuels. So which one produces more? We should all know that humans create little in comparison and that Bio-Mass creates more CO2 exponentially as it exponentially increases the Bio-Mass. But temperatures have flatlined and in reality decreased globally with the increase of CO2. While making deserts greener and longer growing seasons creeping toward the poles. It therefore makes it logical that the cooling is more equatorial and the warming more polar-ward as CO2 increases. That sea levels have slowly increased by some measurements as polar ice has increased in volume, so has the water vapor in the atmosphere causing more equatorial rain as evidence of more heavy rain caused mud slides, etc. Solar flares linked to cyclones and hurricanes creation that bring the heat fron ocean sufaces into the stratosphere where it cools to form rain. Just as tornadoes and dust devils form to do the same heat transfer. The whole of the matter is science at this time cannot say with any accuracy what to expect in the future. There are just too many variables with no answers. We can bicker and contemplate and discuss all we want and still come up short of solutions. We all seem to have our theories from what we hypothesize…that is science today on climate changes and why there is no end to discussion of it, until more is known.
Sorry after sending I realized some spelling errors.
Bart
this misunderstanding is such a pity/
the first graph you show is out of proportion, just like mine:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/20/what-crisis-global-co2-emissions-stalled-for-the-third-year-in-a-row/#comment-2645525
the incoming energy is 20 x greater than outgoing [just looking at K]
the 2nd graph is about the energy trapped on earth, which is clearly being more trapped as CO2 and H2O is increasing due to a) more heat coming in and b) burning of fossil fuels
essentially, the warmist’s argument rests on this argument
1) it is getting warmer
2) the sun (TSI) is the same
3) ergo, we are making too much GHG on earth…
My results show there is no warming since about the new millennium if you look at the rate of change in T (maxima and minima) . There is some warming in the NH due to the movement if earth’s inner core [aligning itself with the sun’s?]
so, I am predicting that
1) it will be getting cooler
2) TSI might be looking the same i.e the area under the chi-square distribution might stay more or less the same, but the whole graph might move a bit to the right or to the left, depending on the various SC’s giving you a different set of concentration of ozone / peroxide / N-oxide products TOA
.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=ggnsHcMV&id=BE8A7343651A6868631F98A8394D74518D0615AF&thid=OIP.ggnsHcMVbUi0tV1J-ymOMwHgFJ&q=emission+spectrum+earth+sun+atmosphere&simid=608012262521569882&selectedIndex=3
3) ergo, there is no man made global warming. It is all God’s window up there.
henryp, “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” You would be better off knowing nothing at all about this subject, rather than having gotten just a taste of it — enough to weave implausible demonstrations of the mistakes of the dedicated scientists who have worked long and hard to increase our understanding of global warming and climate change. You breezily dismiss the hard won insights of these scientists with simplistic proofs based on your own misunderstandings of the science. Part of being educated is having a realistic appreciation of just how little you know. Maybe you should work on that first.
Jesse
I analysed the daily data of 54 weatherstations
balanced on latitude to zero
maxima, minima and means
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/20/what-crisis-global-co2-emissions-stalled-for-the-third-year-in-a-row/#comment-2642525
what exactly did you do to prove to me that [a great part of] the warming observed is man made?
as you can see, by my results there is 100% correlation looking natural –
Failing the publication of your results [or even that of your followers showing me the balance sheet of the warming / cooling of each of the GHG’s]
It follows [from my results] that there is no man made warming.
Live with it/
Jesse,
tell me where you live and I will make a quick determination whether or not temperature in your area has been going up or down.
(always good to start in your own backyard)
Most great thinkers are or were not part of the ‘great’ majority, so always be ready re-think.
We are talking about “global” warming so it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s been getting warmer in one particular place. The warming hasn’t been uniform across the globe.
I will say that the rhododendron in our front yard is blooming about three works earlier than it did when we first bought our house in 1991.
As for thinking that you must be a great thinker because you differ in opinion for the large majority of experts in a field — it’s certainly a pleasant daydream, but it doesn’t pan out very often. Mostly it’s cranks and crackpots who take issue with well-established opinion on a difficult subject. If this were not the case, then the locus of intelligence in the world would be in the Flat Earth Society.
Jesse says\
The warming hasn’t been uniform across the globe.
Jesse
that is my point, is it not?
I am assuming you also live in the SH where there has been little or no warming.
If it were the CO2 doing it, it must be global, should it not? As the CO2 is rising globally, at very predictable rates, as Ferdinand will show you,
True, we cannot have ‘an election’ about science.
You only need one man to get it right….
I am not saying I am the Truth. Only God can make such a statement. But I am looking at my big 4 x 4 with its big wheels and I am not feeling guilty anymore to drive around up the hills just for pleasure, me and my dogs.
Good luck to you too..
henryp, The surface temperature of the Earth has never been uniform and never will be. Latitude, geography, wind patterns, and a host of other factors cause local variations. What increasing levels of CO2 do is raise the average surface temperature.
There’s no point in feeling guilty — that accomplishes nothing. But if we each did a little to cut down on our carbon emissions, together we would all be doing a lot.
I am a senior citizen and don’t expect to live to see the worst consequences of man-made global warming. But like the old man who plants trees to provide shade for later generations, I hope to do what little I can to ward off, or mitigate, the coming calamity.
Jesse
I have plotted RSS versus the warming of the oceans. As you see can it warmed a bit. Is it about 0.3 -0.4?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1987/to:2018/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2018/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1987/to:2018
Now what you and others are saying that this warming of the air and the oceans is caused by the 0.005% of CO2 that was added to the atmosphere since 1987….
You are talking about a tiny little change in the mass of the atmosphere can can change the T of such an enormous mass of water.
Don’t you honestly see how ridiculous such an assertion is?
My own results also show same warming of earth at around 0.012K per annum but only after I include the NH. there was no warming in the NH. Total warming in the NH must therefore be around 0.024K / annum.
Like I have said before, besides your CO2 there are at least three other options that are very much more likely to be the cause of warming, i.e.
1) the window of ozone/peroxide/N-oxide manufactured allowed more heat (UV) into the oceans, making them a bit warmer.
2) the elephant in the room is moving – north east to be precise. Come down 1 km into a gold mine here in South Africa and you will quickly realize how big that elephant really is..
3) I have noted in places where they turned a desert into an oasis, like Las Vegas, minima rose sharply over the past 40 years. OTOH, where they cut the trees, in Tandil, ARG, minima sharply fell. So, this is one of the most ironic of my findings: we all want more trees, lawns and crops, yet this traps heat – as a matter of fact. The same can be said for the oceans – that are also getting greener, apparently.
So, I don’t know anymore what to say. 1) and 2) indicate that warming is natural. You cannot stop the sun and you cannot stop the elephant. I think we are lucky that God gives us more warming these days.
3) indicates that if you want more greenery it will trap some heat. What do want us to do about that?
“there was no warming in the NH”.
sorry, that should be:
there was no warming in the SH.