#COP23 In one graph, best reason ever why the USA doesn’t need to be in the #ParisAgreement

While the COP23 climate conference is going on in Bonn this week, there has been renewed wailing and gnashing of teeth over President Trump’s withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord this past summer. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn’t need to participate, but looking at this one graph, it becomes clear that other countries aren’t leading the way, not one bit. The USA leads by a large margin.

This is the graph climate alarmists and tax revenue trough feeders don’t want you to see:

h/t to Robert Wilson via Twitter

Some BONUS Graphs:

In absolute terms coal use has fallen far more in America this century than anywhere else:

coal-use-by-country

Most of the growth in CO2 emissions this century came from modernizing economies. And China and India dominated:

CO2-growth-by-country

Advertisements

314 thoughts on “#COP23 In one graph, best reason ever why the USA doesn’t need to be in the #ParisAgreement

    • I’d rather have the CO2 thank you. Anyone who thinks it makes more sense to be worried about warming than cooling has frankly lost their marbles.

      • Crackers, in the absence of CO2
        one should be concerned
        about extinction of the planet’s flora
        and the fauna which rely on it for food.
        CO2 increases as Earth warms,
        not before it warms.
        Be thankful that it has warmed slightly
        since the Dalton minimum.
        Those conditions would greatly
        hamper today’s civilization.

      • cracker345:

        David Dilley has some very troubling predictions. If correct we will be cooling for a few decades and that could lead to crop failures etc.

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 7:45 pm

        C3 plants were starving during the last glaciation. It would be impossible to support even a small fraction of present humanity on the vegetative productivity of the LGM. There is a reason why agriculture awaited the Holocene.

  1. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “BUT…but…without the U.S, how do we fund our climate gabfests in every exotic corner of the world?! Jet travel, 5-star hotels, champagne and caviar cost money you know!” – Signed, concerned UN climate elites and environmental NGO’s.

  2. Thanks to fracking, in no small part !
    That little tid bit will make greenie heads explode trying to reconcile those 2 facts!

  3. How about, got it in two…. :)

    (Note: this is taking as a purely ad arguendo given that the Paris strictures would do ANY thing to alter the climate zones of the earth. There is no data supporting that ad arguendo given at this time (in fact, there is anti-correlation data: CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.))

    • In 2100, someone will hit upon this graph and say WTF, considering that they will be just past the deepest part of the next mini ice age where the actual slope of the trend had been negative for decades.

    • With respect to the information in the above article, they don’t tell ME anything.
      Your graph however Janice, is possibly the single most insightful graph that can be used to show the general public, the reality of the CO2 greenhouse danger, MYTH.

      And by the way – I add my voice by saying, good to have you back.
      How the heck can any view worth having, be created unless we have people like yourself passing on your opinion and critique?
      You were/are, one of only a handful, that I take close notice of, so leaving, made me the poorer in my effort to keep up on the matters held on this site.

      • Dear Mr. Hood,

        How very kind. Thank you. :)

        I’m still not supposed to be (per my own goal) “back,” but, er…. well…. (shrug, sheepish grin) I’m an addict.

        “Hi! I’m Janice and I’m a WUWTaholic” (largely because of wonderful people like you).

        Admitting you are an addict is half the battle, right? lololol

        Thanks for taking the time to encourage me (I really need it; I’m out of a job — again! — and NO, I am not undesirable….. not to God, anyway, who “has no problems, only plans.”).

        Take care out there in Internetland,

        Janice

        [Pardon us for a few minutes, the mods are still trying figure out how to mispronounce “WUATaholic” incorrectly. We are not yet succeeding very poorly, but are getting faster at ever slowing rates. .mod]

      • Hi Ms M, i would think the proper terminology would be “Wattaholic”. (i just think it has a better ring to it… ☺) You might consider doing what i’ve always done at this site. i’ve never been too crazy about wuwt because it’s too “tabloid” for my taste. It’s always given me the same feel that i get when i check out at a large chain grocery. You’ve got the national enquirer, the globe, jlo’s latest (in the old days liz taylor choking on chicken bones), etc. So, i just pick out the posts that i like and stick to those. Mostly technical posts because that’s what i always wanted and got over at spencer’s. If you don’t like larry kummer, then just don’t read him. i don’t! That way you can continue your art work, and yes your’s is artwork, without feeling guilty that you’re on the slippery slope to luke warmism with wuwt. Why stop doing what you love?! Unless there’s a better spot on the web to do that which you do so well, then you might as well take those steps that you need to take to make it work for you here. The internet is always going to be a compromise for the user. Key to using the internet is going forward in the “least worst way”, because you’re never going to find the “best way”. Just some sage advice here from the “high school dropout in a tee shirt and leather jacket”…

        post script~ nice to see you back! (cuz let’s face it, you are back)…

      • In reference to: Janice Moore – November 7, 2017 at 4:04 pm

        (comment appended by .mod)

        [Pardon us for a few minutes, the mods are still trying figure out how to mispronounce “WUATaholic” incorrectly. We are not yet succeeding very poorly, but are getting faster at ever slowing rates. .mod]

        @ .mod, …. tis no wonder you are having trouble, …… you misquoted Janice …… by misspelling the word that she coined. 😊 😊

    • It makes no difference. The whole point of the Paris Accord was to force the US to transfer lots and lots of money through the UN kleptocracy.

    • yes, THAT’s the one graph,
      The one that show the vanity of the whole climate scare and “we must do something” mantra.
      The impact of COP: buying a 1 year delay on a 1 century thing, useless if the thing eventually do not happen, for the 100x the price needed to just adapt to whatever happen then (this, or the opposite, or something utterly different not planned).

    • Hey Janice!
      It’s a good thing you didn’t factor in the effect of all those parasites jetting around the world in aid of Paris objectives. They create more CO2 than they prevent! Very generous of you.
      Besides which, the good old Earth rejects extra heat faster than CO2 can add it- evry night!

    • so you want it both ways – you
      don’t want to control CO2, then
      you complain that efforts to control
      CO2 are too small. doesn’t
      compute, sorry.

      ps – yesterday’s NYT had graphs
      showing a different impact of
      paris

  4. …someone’s going to come along and mention percentages or some such nonsense
    and why does no one ever mention places like Kuwait…where their emissions have sky rocked

    • Here i am, Lat! (and here’s my nonsense… ☺) WRT the top graph, we’ve got five times as many people in this country than the U.K. Of course we’re going to have greater total reductions than them! It’s nonsense like this that give skeptics the d’nier branding. If we’re ever expected to be taken seriously, then let’s put some serious argumentation out there (and not this kind of cow pie)…

      • this comment was not written by nick stokes. nor funded by nick stokes. any resemblence to comments by nick stokes is strickly unintentional. (you might say nick stokes owes me one)…

      • Also, it is easier to have greater CO2 reductions when the per capita CO2 emissions start from a higher base.

        Obviously, if one already has a low CO2 economy, say like Norway, then it is more difficult to make further substantial reductions.

        That said, the plot does support the contention that even though the US is outside the major treaties (Kyoto, now Paris), it is being more effective at reducing CO2 than the countries that are signed up to Kyoto and now Paris. Countries such as Germany have made no CO2 reductions since 2009, and in fact they are now increasing their CO2 emissions, and will continue to do so for many years to come. Countries like Germany are being hypocritical when they criticise the US.

        For many reasons, it makes no practical difference whether the US is signed up to Paris or not. Hopefully, other countries will come to their senses and they will join the US in ditching the Paris Accord.

      • Fonzie, so five times it and see how US has done. UK, France, Germany who have crippled their economies spending endless 100s of billions on “mitigation” impoverish in more their poor and US has simply used gas – a fossil fuel instead of all coal. Note also a long drive in UK or other European countries is 100 miles. Many could be hidden in Lake Suoerior. Imagine a country like Denmark spending more on anti CO2 than the US.

        One could say the results with all this fuss and pain, draining your treasury, killing off the sick and elderly in winter, driving away industry… that this is proof CO2 isn’t even an important player in climate except to say the greening is recreating a garden of Eden earth courtesy of fossil fuels. I think these are important data points.

      • Germany , pop 82.67, France pop 66.9, U.K. pop 65.64, Belgium pop 11.35, Denmark pop 5,73. Or about 2/3 thirds of U.S.A pop
        Yet their reductions appears to only 1/3 third of what the U.S.A. has managed to achieve.
        In my view they have nothing on us in coal reductions.
        michael

      • Gary, i’ll even one up you on that… The atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate has been tracking with the temperature of the southern ocean since the inception of the MLO data set over half a century ago! If the future is anything like the past half century plus, the amount of emissions don’t matter one iota anyway. If there is “one graph” that says it all, it’s the graph of the co2 growth rate vs temperature…

      • You’re confusing cause and effect, afonzarelli. If the oceans warm, CO2 is all but guaranteed to increase. The reverse is not necessaruly true.

      • @Gary Pearse.: We did not cripple our economy! Our economy is doing great, we export renewables gear to other countries, i.e USA etc.

      • Marty,

        Do you really believe that the economy of the EU is doing great?

        Then why has the Euro crashed against other currencies? Why is there a debt crisis in so many member states?

        Also, please state what renewable tech the EU is exporting to the US. Thanks.

        When we nix subsidies for the Green death sc@m. even that pittance will dry up.

      • “Yet their reductions appears to only 1/3 third of what the U.S.A. has managed to achieve.”
        That is because they were using much less to begin with. It’s hard to improve that a lot further.

        The combined reduction, 2006-2016, of Be+De+Fr+Ge+UK was 17.9% vs US .11.3%.

      • Gary Pearse.
        November 7, 2017 at 5:58 pm
        “. UK, France, Germany who have crippled their economies spending endless 100s of billions on “mitigation”

        ####

        France has not crippled its economy. It has the worlds lowest CO2 output per capita and half the electricity prices as Germany bc of nuclear power.

        Even Germany has not crippled its economy bc. of Electicity charges. The economy is thriving. lowest jobless number for 25 years. For industry, electricity price are down at international level (I think 6ct/kWh). But not for the poor. They pay 30 ct/kWh.

        What the British have done, I do not know. They abandoned their Industry some decades ago.

      • Mark T, the oceans would have to drop about .7C at the surface for the growth rate to go negative. (don’t know if we’ll ever see that in our life time)…

      • Johannes Herbst November 7, 2017 at 8:43 pm: UK manufacturing output is higher than ever in real terms, it’s just that services have grown much more. Germany’s Energiewende is a disaster (not least for bird and bat life) as the Jamaica coalition attempt is discovering. GDP: USA $19.4t, China $11.8t, Japan $4.8t, Germany $3.4t, UK $2.5t (5th highest). US GDP per capita $59,609 Germany GDP per capita $49,814, UK GDP per capita $44,001 (GDP figures nominal, GDP per capita figures PPP purchasing-power-parity, 2017 figures).

        https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022415/worlds-top-10-economies.asp

      • afonzarelli – November 7, 2017 at 6:21 pm

        Gary, i’ll even one up you on that… The atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate has been tracking with the temperature of the southern ocean since the inception of the MLO data set over half a century ago!

        Actually, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 has been tracking with the surface temperature of the southern ocean since the end of the LIA, …… and for sure, …. the past 100+ years as per this recorded data, to wit:

        Graph of Sea surface temperatures for Australia —– 1910 – 2010

      • Mark T – November 7, 2017 at 6:32 pm

        You’re confusing cause and effect, afonzarelli. If the oceans warm, CO2 is all but guaranteed to increase. The reverse is not necessaruly true.

        AW GEEEZE, ….. Mark T, ….. of course the reverse is true, ….. as defined by the bi-yearly (seasonal) cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm as denoted on the KC Graph.

      • Cogar, you’re keeping me on my toes… that’s part and parcel why i go by my (real) nick name of “fonzie”. i am an inarticulate boob! But, i am learning and i try not to make the same mistakes twice. (thanx in large part to peops like you)…

      • afonzarelli – November 8, 2017 at 11:35 am

        Cogar, you’re keeping me on my toes…

        Your recognition of the “fact” that the ocean water temperature is the “driver” of the MLO data not only impresses me, but proves that you are more learned than most WUWT participants.

        “DUH”, the most commonly accepted belief, even though it is silly, asinine and biologically impossible, is that the “driver” of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities is the “greening & microbial decomposition” of the biomass situate on the Northern Hemisphere’s land mass and anthropogenic emissions.

        Thus said, Fonzie, I was not critiquing your comment, I was merrily “adding” to it via the graph denoting Australian “sea surface temperature record” dating back to 1910 …… in an attempt to enlighten other WUWT participants to the scientific fact that the surface temperature of the ocean water in the Southern Hemisphere is the “driver” of atmospheric CO2 ppm as defined by the MLO data (Keeling Curve Graph).

        Iffen one plotted the Mauna Loa data on top of a copy of the above cited Australian “sea surface temperature graph” …… I am sure the two data sets (from 1960 to 2010) would correlate quite nicely.

        Cheers

  5. It’s not about CO2, science, weather, not even about the climate, it’s all, and only, about the money!

    Everybody knows CO2 is nothing but plant food!

    Why even spend time discussing plant food??

  6. Do we need reminding?

    Christiana Figueres, Former executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010-2016) laid out the true intentions of the UNFCCC and their Conference of Parties agreements:

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Their solution of course is world Socialism. Organized by a political system run by un-elected elites (like her of course), with climate aid profits skimmed from the re-distribution funds to fill personal accounts and hidden in off-shore accounts.

    • Joelobyan
      I would suggest that you look at the oxford dictionary definition of the socialism. It appears to be bandied about without consideration for the true meaning.
      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism
      Their intentions appear not to be socialist, as I don’t see how the intended outcome is going to be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
      It is for the benefit of a minority.
      Regards

      • It appears to me that socialism is touted as being a benefit for all, but operated in practice as a benefit for the controlling elite at the expense of regular folks.

        SR

      • They don’t want to own Exxon, GM, or Google. That was the lesson learned of Communism’s giant failure. Someone has to have a profit/greed motive to efficeintly run t=complex businesses.

        But they do want to control them. The only time they would “nationalize” as business, such as a bank, is if it resisted their control. Nationalization would be punishment, the seizure of the company assets for resale from the owners using the power of the state. Usually then their cronies buy the seized company for pennies. This is what the Obama Admin tried to do to private for-profit universities.

        Under this form of socialism, the owners and senior managers would be allowed to get rich, as long as they understood their bosses were the bureaucrats, not their customers.
        Think of it more like the mob boss telling business they need to pay protection money and just pass the cost to their customers. As long as everyone cooperates, no one gets their knees capped.

      • You gave the true definition of socialism. He gave their definition. “Lying scumbags” doesn’t even begin to describe the modern-day left.

      • Ozonebust, socialists only claim to be doing it for the masses. However there is no way to implement it with enriching the elite and impoverishing everyone else.

      • It is not socialism or a sub-set of socialism.
        Surely the learned scholars visiting this site have a greater understanding.

        It is a totalitarian style doctrine from a central global body. The science and policy is settled. They are acting in our best interests. Be thankful.
        Where is the open discussion, community involvement or engagement.
        Small / medium countries have no choice. The two who did not sign at Paris, have just signed up to the Paris accord. They wanted stronger commitments.

        My own country is galloping toward AGW conformity. The Green party has been appointed to spearhead the charge. If we buck the trend unspoken trade sanctions await. Difficulty in access to markets occurs. Your not playing the game.
        Over 400 scientific papers this year alone according to NoTricksZone that say AGW is rubbish. If it was socialism they would be at least heard and possibly taken seriously, for the good of the people.

        The AGW’s are programmed mono thinkers, act now think later. Just do it anyway there is no time to waste.

        Please, no more misguided comments about it being socialist. Call it for what it is.
        Regards

      • No, they don’t mean the basic definition. They definitely mean the Marxist definition of socialism. The transitional state between capitalism and communism. They are more in the realm of the pigs in Animal Farm.

      • the marxist description seems very apt. a transitional state between capitalism and communism. this where it is at. people sceptical of the AGW position can see how this is being used as a tool to transition. socialists believe the free market cannot be allowed to lead, they think there must be a governmental control for everything and environmental controls (through AGW) are becoming the tool.

        socialists in all countries are able to use this UN fake mandate to socialize their own economies. eg controls on power production, guiding transport manufacture and infrastructure. where are we now? nearly everyone pays money/tax for this. no-one is exempt. all countries have some sort of AGW tax, some hidden, some not so much, but each is a tax that should not exist. you want to change something on your property? environmental controls are king, you want to drive somewhere? you want to power your house? you want to vote in someone who will reject it? unless you are in one of the lucky few countries like USA, you are out of luck.

        that is why this story is so good, it shows how the free market continues to lead the way in every way even in the fakery that is carbon reduction. socialized economies have NO answer. they just create more problems. lets see china do the right thing hey, and decarbonise their economy.. hahahaha. yeah right.

      • Edwin
        Then call it Marxism.
        Anyone hearing the term socialism in its softest meaning thinks that someone is going to put a warm blanket around their shoulders, and not count the score in a match they are competing in so no-one gets hurt feelings. This is for the good of the community.

        Give them a harsh name, because that is the outcome if they get their way, which is occurring in pretty much every country.
        Regards

      • Socialism is for the benefit of only those that run it, namely, the rich people common socialists hate. They’re just too stupid to realize they are handing control over to their own enemy, with a smile and a thank you to top it off. When corporations, are still owned, btw, it is actually fascism. This truth has apparently been lost on the intelligencia of today. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter which “ism” they implement (or what they want to call it), unless it is capitalism, they all are collectivism and they all fail for the exact same reason: an inability to adjust to changes in supply and demand.

      • Ozone, socialism is defined the way you say it, but in practice it is run by humans and eventually evolves into totalitarianism (the EU is in the ‘second stage’ of no return.) . The faithful always say that you can’t use USSR as an example. Or China, or Cambodia, or the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea, or where the EU is heading, do you think not? The only thing is they will collapse before they get there. Trump, crazily, may be your last chance to be rescued. By the US not playing ball, you all will have to quit this craziness.

        Why anyone who has lived through the history of this stuff can believe that anything like the Oxford dictionary idea of socialism is a stable economic alternative beggars belief. Ozone! The Oxford Dictionary is only giving you the advertisement. It’s shelf life is measured in years, perhaps some decades, but eventually it becomes the USSR. Guaranteed. A system has to have a big broom that sweeps this tendency towards despots away regularly twice or more per decade.

        In any case, your civilization is done in a bigger way about which it is now against the law in your land to acknowkedge. There is a lack of purpose. Resigned meekness in handing over to those who think democracy, freedom, parliament, the Magna Carta, human rights, the Mona Lisa, the William Tell Overture, libraries, movies,… are abominations. Talking about disaster in 2100 by CO2 is a mass form of transference (D’nile in the classical psychological sense). Europe stares off into the distant future vowing to pre-empt the looming disaster of CO2 consuming mankind. This is actually a code for a looming that won’t wait anywhere near that long. Getting this silly fixation over quickly is necessary to clear your vision and avert real disaster.

    • Ozonebust, you can quibble definitions all you like but Joelobryan is correct. A long time ago, Globalist saw the AGW argument as the perfect platform to attain their ultimate goals, the destruction of nationalism and capitalism to be replaced by a global governance and worldwide wealth redistribution. Christiana Figueres has shown her cards on their ultimate goals many times. All you have to do is listen.

    • I am heartened by the understanding demonstrated in this thread. AGW is definitely garbage science. It is definitely a creature of the Eco-Socialists. These are people who have no skills in the field of money or managing at the macro level and are therefore incapable of rising through the corporate world where measurement of results is inherent. They are afraid of this sort of measurement because it would quickly reveal their lack of ability.
      But they crave power, so they gravitate to politics and special interest groups where empty rhetoric and underhanded conniving can produce personal advancement. They cloak themselves in “the common good” as a vehicle that is almost unassailable in our modern “touchy-feely” world. A wise man once said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. This is the modern equivalent.
      We need to disarm these creatures and send them back to irrelevance. An opening has been provided for them by our existing system of setting corporate, development interests against conservation interests in a winner take all manner.
      we need a more considered approach wherein the public feels more assured that proper balance is applied to development and care for the environment. This could have been provided by the EPA in the U.S. but it has absorbed and been co-opted by the activists. A different governance model is necessary. Once it is seen to be effective, other countries will have an easier time doing things the same way and hopefully some sanity can prevail.
      Essentially, all financial assistance and tax breaks for these “Green” organizations, must be halted. They are not good for democracy. Their agendas supersede democratic objectives.

  7. When it comes to CO2 emissions reductions, you can only switch from coal to natural gas once. After that you have to switch to renewables or reduce energy use. Have fun with those options.

    • Human history of fuels:

      elephant and wildebeest dung –> trees –> coal –> oil –> natural gas –> (next) unicorn farts –> back to dung as the world economy collapses.

    • Steve from Rockwood November 7, 2017 at 2:53 pm

      Actually, the U.S. is a long way from having switched from coal to natural gas even once. There is still lots of switching left undone. So, you should be happy about the prospect of continued reduction of CO2 emissions. Why don’t you sound happy? You make me think reduced CO2 emissions is’t actually what you are rooting for.

      SR

      • mobihci
        November 7, 2017 at 6:11 pm

        or be like france.

        France’s nuclear reactors are rapidly reaching their planned lifespan. The little fat man before Macron had decided to discontinue the nuclear “experiment” and close them gradually and replace them with green alternatives. I have yet to see anything regards changing that policy from the new government.

        Whatever the new solution will almost certainly be far more expensive to the consumer. Being France there will certainly be quite a bit of excitement when the reality of this starts to bite. Just the current labour reforms have provoked around 4000 strikes.

        SteveT

    • Why would you want to reduce emissions?

      The world loves having a fourth molecule of essential trace gas CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules. Eight would be better and 12 best of all.

  8. It is easy to sign up to an idea when it requires you to do nothing , or better still is one that you expect to make a great deal of money out off. And much harder to sign up when it means you lose money and have to take steps which result in having lower ability to make any money.

    • Like Russia, who met their Paris goal nearly 20 years ago simply by dissolving the inefficient USSR. I’m not even sure how to classify that. It’s both brilliant and moronic at the same time.

      • Of course the joke is who is keeping score? This is all about self reporting. That may be the next attack. No one is reporting properly so the UN must have another agency to actually go in and count for the world government.

  9. if this was all about cost, we would be switching to natural gas. if it was all about less co2 we would be switching to natural gas. its not about renewables because they are less reliable and more expensive. its social engineering. they have created a scare, we will all burn up, run out of water and food, so we need to follow the smart leaders and do what they say. guess what….WE don’t really matter and neither does the .04% of the atmosphere that is co2. We will all burn up anyway in a couple of billion years.

    • The price of NG is volatile, and is not available everywhere. So we do need coal, and could definitely burn more than we do now, because of Obama’s war on coal.

    • I wonder if some of the support for wind and solar is from those in natural gas.
      The only way wind and solar can seem to supply reliable power to the grid is with fossil fuel and nuclear backup. Since “The War on Coal” and since the very thought of nuclear has always sent some, well, “nuclear”, NG is the is the one left standing. Build the “backup” plants ready to take over when “sustainable renewables” have lost their sustaining subsidies for good?
      Just a thought.

    • If it was about lowering co2 and reliability the answer would be Nuclear. I lived in Virginia in the late 60, early 70 when Vepco (at the time) built the 2 Surry County reactors. My dad was bitching about the cost, but look at Dominion power rates NOW, below the national average. If we never stopped building nuke plants in the 70s we would need no natural gas plants except for peaking and coal would be long gone.. Those 2 reactors came on line in 72 and 73 and are licensed for 60 years (2032/3) and may be extended to 80 years! And not a bit of co2 released from electrical generation. Who does everyone think paid all the anti-nuclear activists in the 70 to protest. The coal companies. It is always follow the money, and it is always the MSM, even then, who covered it up.

  10. A picture is worth a thousand words. Let’s see if the MSM even mentions this information while discussing the conference. If there’s any doubt AGW isn’t all about defeating Capitalism and extracting money from industrialized countries to give to developing countries to satisfy ideological beliefs this should end it.

  11. America invented Coke & Pepsi.

    Oh bugger, where did that huge amount of carbonated evil gas up their in the sky originate?

  12. We don’t need to be in the ‘Paris Agreement’ because CO2 is not a threat to the global environment. No other specious arguments are needed.

  13. This graph is uninformative; all it really says is that the US is by far the biggest country in the table, and has the highest gross emissions. I think also it is not for this century, but 2006-2016; that is what the BP 2017 report gives on p 47. In terms of percentage, US is well below. Here is a list of the top 28:

    Percent change, 2006-2016, CO2 emissions 
    %     Country
    -37.0 Denmark
    -36.0 Finland
    -35.6 Ukraine
    -33.4 Greece
    -29.8 Romania
    -29.8 United Kingdom
    -28.3 Italy
    -22.7 Spain
    -19.9 Hungary
    -18.7 European Union
    -18.4 Sweden
    -17.5 Slovakia
    -16.6 Czech Republic
    -16.6 France
    -15.0 Switzerland
    -14.7 Ireland
    -14.2 Austria
    -14.0 Belgium
    -13.7 Portugal
    -12.8 Bulgaria
    -12.8 Lithuania
    -12.2 Netherlands
    -11.3 US
    -11.1 Total Europe & Eurasia
     -9.8 Total North America
     -9.4 Germany
    
    • I told you so…..

      Latitude
      November 7, 2017 at 2:44 pm

      …someone’s going to come along and mention percentages or some such nonsense

      • Ha! Lat! (i actually wrote my replies to your original comment, way above, before even reading this one by nick!)…

      • I have tried to explain this before, without success. Mother Nature doesn’t care where the ‘pollution’/CO2/whatever comes from, and she doesn’t care about the per capita production. She is impacted by the total gross tonnage. My example for explaining this was

        Let’s say 330M Americans piss in two ounce cups and dump those cups directly into the ocean.
        Now let’s say 1B Chinese piss in one ounce cups and dump them directly into the ocean.

        Which group has caused more damage to the ocean?

        Per capita guilt is a moral concept, not a statistical one.

      • “She is impacted by the total gross tonnage.”
        So how do political boundaries matter? What difference would it make if China’s provinces were called countries? Or the EU’s countries called states? EU reduced more in total than the US.

      • Nick,

        EU population is about 510 million, v. 320 million in the US.

        US citizens are doing much better per capita than the enslaved masses of the EU are under their unelected masters, who are happy for them to die in order to appease the CACA gods.

      • Gabro,
        “EU population is about 510 million, v. 320 million in the US.”
        Yes. And EU emissions in 2016 were 3485 Gtons CO2, vs 5350 for the US. That’s why the EU reduction was a larger %.

      • The US produces more per capita, despite having naturally higher energy expenditures for transport, heating and cooling. Not to mention defending the Western world, to include the freeloading EU states and their enslaved masses.

      • Lokki – do you think you, as an America, have a god-given right to piss more than a Chinese person?

        Do you realize that America has already pissed more than twice as much as the Chinese?

      • Crackers345 that is a very socialist argument all persons should be equal :-)
        USA has more nukes than everyone else as well should they give each country there quota of nukes???

        The agreements are per country and as you don’t get to control how each country operates you need to leave it at that. Population is one metric you can use for dividing up the problem and high population low landmass countries get unequally disadvantaged they don’t have the area to install wind power or solar farms, look at Japan for example. So you could have chosen land area given renewables are the eco-facist power of choice that probably makes more sense than population.

        The thing behind most of the AGW decisions and choices of metrics is an agenda that isn’t universally believed.

      • The premise for you question is I accept that emitting CO2 is a right that should be governed.
        Are USA going to give me some nukes I am rather Nuke poor here?

        I demand my fair share of nukes :-)

      • I think poor crackers hasn’t been told the world is full of unequalities, but don’t worry he is going to fix it :-)

      • Yes but I don’t torture myself with guilt like you, it is what it is an imperfect system. Given the number of political systems we have around the world they all seem to end up with the same result.

        My problem I have with you is if CO2 is the problem then why concentrate on emission control?
        In a spaceship we have the same problem and you can’t make the occupants emit any less so you remove the CO2 out of the atmosphere. So if CO2 is such a problem why isn’t it being directly tackled because it has a political agenda. I like to know what I am getting when I sign into a political change, history has shown it is seldom a good thing :-).

      • As an aside you sound like a Catholic priest after all that has happened in his parish trying to claim some moral high ground.

      • Those who produce more will obviously consume more in pursuit of that outcome. The world’s wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth generated in the U.S. and other developed countries means more development in Africa and more aid ( if that actually does any good).
        It is a particular blind, obstinate stupidity of the Lefty that they always fail to recognize that this is the formula that has delivered the West to heights of productivity and wealth that people of earlier times could not have dreamed of. It is the only way to create economic efficiency, which, in turn is the only way to increase individual productivity and wealth.
        Is it always equal? No!
        Is it much, much better to be poor in a wealthy society than rich in a dirt poor one? Emphatically Yes!

    • Reducing an insignificant amount by 37% is still an insignificant amount. The US reduction was equivalent to eliminating the entire country of Denmark.

    • But NIck, global warming depends on total emissions, not per capita. Which explains why China and India (not on the graph because they did not qualify) will be driving GW (if the models are right). Oh, wait….

    • If CO2 emission actually matters, the numbers that actually matter would be based on gross world CO2 emission. The U.S. is far and away the leader in percent of total world emissions reduced.

      SR

      • The US did it without killing tens of millions of its citizens, as the EU did its enslaved masses.

        Also, the two economies are starkly different. The US uses far more fossil fuels in its transport system, being a continental nation. The EU, not so much. It’s less than 44% the size of the US.

        And of course, as noted, we have air conditioning usage lacking in most of the EU.

      • Nick Stokes November 7, 2017 at 7:12 pm
        The EU reduced emissions more in total than the US.

        Nick, are you claiming EU reduced CO2 emissions by more tonnes than the U.S.? That claim is not supported by anything presented today. Your table was displaying % of reduction, relative to each country’s prior emissions, not tonnage reduced.

        You do realize my response pertained to reductions relative to total world production, don’t you?

      • “Nick, are you claiming EU reduced CO2 emissions by more tonnes than the U.S.? “
        Yes. Reduction 2006-2016 for EU was 800.5 tons CO2, for US was 678.8.

        But I’ve linked to the report, p 47. You can check.

      • Nick Stokes November 7, 2017 at 9:38 pm

        OK, Nick, I checked your linked BP report, Pg. 47. I did see that your numbers are correct for reductions in CO2 for 2016 compared to 2006, once we note that the reductions were million tonnes, not tons.

        However, EU reductions have petered out in the last year or 2 of the report. Comparing 2016 to 2015, only 5 members had reductions, with the U.K. posting by far the biggest reduction of 27 million tonnes. Spain followed with 7 million tonnes, while Portugal, Greece and Bulgaria had small reductions. All other EU members had increases.

        The U.S. posted a reduction in 2016 of 94.6 million tonnes. So, if we are going to talk current events, the claim of this post is validated by the BP report.

        SR

      • I guess we are comparing [pruned] in a contest of who has made the most useless contribution to a useless cause.
        It was raining and muddy last week but I washed my car anyway because I had change weighing down my pocket. I could have given it to a homeless guy or some other good cause but what the Heck?

      • Yes, indeed, and skeptics are not saying reducing CO2 emissions should be our goal. We are observing that the U.S. is being condemned for not pledging to reduce CO2 emissions, and those condemners don’t seem to care that the U.S. emissions haveactualy been reduced much more than any of the countries that are pledging to reduce emissions of CO2.

        SR

      • And to that, Mr. St0kes, while your graph is, indeed, pertinent, here, I say: “So what.”

        Anthony’s absolute quantity graph truly IS sufficient rationale for spitting on the Paris junk deal. It says all that is necessary:

        the United States of America has done

        ENOUGH ALREADY!

      • Nick Stokes November 7, 2017 at 4:06 pm
        Yes. But it emits more than 100 Denmarks.

        So, Nick, you confirmed at 4:06 that actual amount emitted matters over percent of national emission.

        SR

      • Well I’m certainly impressed that a country the size of Denmark (43,000 km2) that manufactures cell phones……was able to beat out a country ( USA 9,629,091 km2) that not only makes phones but everything else..and manages to feed most of the world at the same time

      • Germany has made all but no reduction in their CO2 emissions since 2009, and the last couple of years there has been an increase in their CO2 emissions.

        Their CO2 emission reduction policy, the use of windfarms and solar, has now come up against the buffer, and since wind and solar do not produce base load energy, Germany are now replacing their base load nuclear with coal, which is increasing their CO2 emissions.

        Germany will not reduce CO2 emissions to any measurable extent over the coming decade.

      • Doesn’t the GDP come in? US is about 60X Denmark. How about GDP per capita? US is more than 16% larger than Denmark. US is far more land area per capita resulting in larger transportation costs (fuel). US also has large areas of desert climate that require air conditioning (electricity). There are so many other factors at work that singular metrics like this are relatively uninformative.

      • Ukraine did pretty well all it had to do was get in a war. Obviously fixing up emissions has an easy answer.

    • Funny…we’re “well below” soooooo many Euro nations, yet “Total Europe & Eurasia” is -11.1 while the US is -11.3.

    • The question of magnitude did cross my mind, but it also has its limitations when approaching minuscule (such as Denmark) and changes more approach step functions rather than curves and therefore comparison suffers.
      just another case of:
      “Using statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts—for support rather than illumination.”

    • Sorry but the top five in your list combined do not even have economies as big as Florida’s. In fact all but the EU and the UK don’t even come close to be significant economies compared with the USA or China. Your list is sort of like comparing anchovies with giant bluefin tuna. Why isn’t China in the top 28. And as for overall total reductions, not just percentage, the USA beats everyone else. The whole game is wealth transfer and always has been.

    • Nick. How did the runner-up achieve this? They hadn’t completed the new nuclear power plant in 2016. Most energy over there is needed during the winter, when the arctic receives the least sunshine. The country isn’t particularly windy either.

      So presumably, they increased burning forest, peat and food instead. They try to avoid importing nuclear power e.g. from Chernobyl prototypes in Sosnovy Bor, but this cannot be excluded either of course. How would any of these choices save Gaia or spare her children?

  14. But of course we’re seeing all these articles popping up, excoriating the US because, now that Syria as signed on, we’re the ONLY country that hasn’t.
    Didn’t see this little fact in any of the suppression news networks.

  15. What I find odd is that WUWT often discusses CO2 emissions like they were relevant to anything other than the Alarmist Agenda.
    Can’t we just be clear and say that although it is (by definition a ‘greenhouse gas’) the impact of CO2 on climate is ‘negligible’?

      • Cracker. CO2 comprises 1/25th part of ONE percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. The dominant ‘greenhouse gas’ is in fact Water Vapour at around 4%.
        The bizarre, contorted positive feedback loops constructed by Alarmists simply bounce off this basic scientific fact.

      • Cracker.
        Do you think we should limit ‘irrigation’?
        After all ‘irrigation’ by shifting water to warm dry places introduces gigatonnes of a powerful ‘greenhouse gas’ into the atmosphere?
        So…ban irrigation…like immediately?

      • Crackers, you are boring. You post poorly. Your arguments are shallow and show an affinity for short gotcha comments that look as if your attention span can barely handle an Xbox game.

        Here’s an idea. Post a comment with actual paragraphs and a plainly though out and systematic argument involving actual rules of logic. Maybe then, even if you don’t convince any of us, you might actually be able to engage in an intelligent conversation instead be a troll.

      • Andrew Cooke commented – “Post a comment with actual paragraphs and a plainly though out and systematic argument involving actual rules of logic.”

        like that ever happens here!

    • There are those who accept the science that CO2 has a lukewarm GH effect.

      So it is a good exercise to show how futile are the meager effects on climate of a Paris Treaty, even if fully complied with, even using the IPCC’s own methods. And then the cost of that in drastic effects on econmic growth (GDP).

    • The only relevance of CO2 are ..

      1. The necessity for MORE in the atmosphere.

      2. The Anti-CO2 agenda needs to be shut down.. it has already DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE. !

    • Can’t we just be clear and say that although it is (by definition a ‘greenhouse gas’) the impact of CO2 on climate is ‘negligible’

      Let me correct that:

      CO2 although it is a ‘radiative gas,’ the impact of CO2 on climate has never been measured, and the impact on climate, if any at all, appears negligible.

    • Instead of using the terms “greenhouse” and “greenhouse gas” — clearly bat crap crazy — lets call it what it really is (thanks Johnny Carson) — radiatively active gas.
      CO2 is introduced into a greenhouse because it is good for, used by, the plants.
      Start making sense. Stop using the phrase. Please.
      Thanks.

    • Charles
      Agreed in full
      Luke warmers need to put some facts on the table to support their position.
      Luke warmer = I think so. I don’t know but I think so.
      They have a leg dangling either side of the fence with clear space below.
      The evidence absolutely confirms that atmospheric CO2 density is lowest during the temperature rise out of a glacial phase into inter-glacial. What else do they need.
      Regards

    • What I find odd is that WUWT often discusses CO2 emissions like they were relevant to anything other than the Alarmist Agenda.

      Well, UN (UNEP, IPCC, FCCC, WMO et al) is more than “Alarmist Agenda” only.

    • Thank you, Charles! Please repeat at least 50 times per day on here. It hasn’t warmed in almost 20 years. It is , in fact cooling at present. CO2 has no detectable effect. The prospect of global, natural cooling is much more concerning than the warming we are not seeing but would benefit from.
      Climate “science” is a scam!!!

  16. When it came to things the Kyoto Protocol, the US said it would not participate and not be effective unless developing nations like India and China were included. Obviously it was correct.

    • We’ve emitted twice as much life-giving plant food? Horrors! China and the rest of the world have a lot of catching up to do. In the meantime though, you’re welcome, world.

    • Crackers, your statement is so wrong that I wonder if you do this to create fog. China is way out in first place:

      Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2017). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017.

      • Crackers,

        The US industrialized before China, so that its people could enjoy prosperity, feed the world, provide it with medicine, transportation and communication technology and save democracy repeatedly, while China’s people suffered horrible famines and wars. How is this a bad thing?

        And what’s wrong with China now trying to achieve prosperity? Especially if they were to adopt US anti-pollution standards, ie against real pollution, not plant food.

        More CO2 is good. More pollution isn’t. Which is why the US should sell its high BTU, clean coal to China, so that they don’t have to burn their low-BTU, dirty coal.

        It would also help if we quit buying solar panels and wind turbines from China, since their manufacture is so environmentally disastrous that they can’t be produced in the US. Forget about wind and solar and burn more fossil fuels, feeding the world’s C3 crop plants and trees in the process.

      • Crackers writes these statements that are devoid of logic:

        “the us has emitted far
        more CO2 than has China.

        whether you feel guilty is a
        moral and ethical decision
        that is your’s to make.”

        and,

        “i’m not wrong. i’m
        speaking of _total_
        emissions (cumulative),
        not just one year’s.”

        Earlier you said,that I responded to:

        “the US has emitted twice as
        much co2 as has China. More
        than any other nation.”

        I showed by evidence that you ARE wrong,your reply was dead on arrival.

        You are moving the goalpost with your stupid drivel.

    • And am I supposed to feel guilty?

      National wealth is not a zero sum game. Technology has changed how energy is produced and which energy source is produced over the last 100 years. Immense changes.
      China’s emission growth rate and population size means that CO2 reductions by the US are meaningless in the face of Chna’s rising emissions. Emissions under CO21 Paris are not capped for 13 more years.

      Should I now beggar myself to appease some twisted sense of guilt? An effort that lifts no one? To appease some Liberal’s whacky ideas of “social justice” or “environmental justice?”

      More to the point.

      • I’m proud of all the peace and prosperity the US has produced and shared with the world. Not possible without fossil fuels. Those who should feel guilt are they who advocate renewables and energy poverty, leading to the deaths of tens of millions.

      • the us has emitted far more CO2 than has China.

        Whilst that is presently correct, it is unlikely to remain the case in the coming decades.

        Further, developing nations are hitching a lift on the skirt tails of developed nations since they themselves do not need to reinvent the wheel.

        For example, much CO2 was emitted in the creation of the modern motor car. China need only copy it, it does not need to start back in the late 1800s, and thereby enriches itself on the back of CO2 emissions from developed nations.

        I feel no moral repulsion. In fact since the preponderance of evidence suggests that CO2 is a net plus, I am extremely content that the US and others continue to emit CO2. It is unfortunate that it appears that CO2 does little, if anything, to warm the planet, since the planet is presently way too cold for life to prosper, and it would be of great benefit to life generally, if the globe were to warm up to at least the temperature of the Holocene Optimum, if not a degree or so warmer..

      • Well crackers,

        I hope you live with your GUILT for all your fossil fuel dependent, miserable life. !

        Ethics.. you sadly lack.

      • Hey crackerboy,
        go beat up on Luxembourg. They need your kind to bus tables at their outdoor cafes.

    • “the US has emitted twice as
      much co2 as has China. More
      than any other nation. ”

      oh Lord, this is the new liberal thing…..apologizing for things you didn’t even do, weren’t even born….

      Crackeres should we all just send in our money at one time…..you know for emissions, slavery, flags, 10 commandments…all of it….can we just write one check and be done with it?

    • It is not enough we have to do more. Lets try to double our output to four times China’s total CO2 contribution. Plants would love it.

      • [crackers345 …matt – plants don’t like higher temperature. or changes in rainfall. or more weeds. or more insects. more diseases. your view is simplistic]

        Amazon vs Antarctica, the Amazon region with higher temperatures, more weeds, more insects, more diseases, has more plants.

        Your view is wrong.

      • Then every greenhouse in the world is wasting their money increasing the CO2 content of their greenhouses up to 1500 ppm. They actually buy machines and spend money buying fuel to increase the level why would they do that if it did not increase yields. Farmers are practical not stupid.

      • Thomas – plants in the
        amazon have evolved, over
        millions of years, to tolerate
        and thrive in that environment.
        we’re only giving plants about
        150 yrs to adapt to 3 C
        of warming.

      • Crackers,

        the plants in the Amazon nearly died out at the peak of the last Glaciation period. It is the COLD world that hurts tropical plants a lot,not a slight warming world.

        Meanwhile it doesn’t warm much more in the Tropical region anyway, due to its high water vapor level.

      • crackers345 November 9, 2017 at 11:22 am

        Of course greenhouses obtain. With more CO2, C3 plants need less water and thrive more rapidly and luxuriantly. Same happens in the outside world. Just look at the Sahel now v. when CO2 was 300 ppm.

        Tommy,

        Correct. Crackers should educate himself by looking at the vegetation profile of the tropics during glacial phases v. interglacials, such as now. Low CO2 is deadly for C3 plants. Cold is also drier, for a double whammy. And windier, further aggravating low moisture via evaporation.

        As dryland wheat farmers say, it does no good to get an inch of rain if it comes with an inch of wind.

      • Crackers,

        If you think you can handle the truth, please research the “Pleistocene Tropical Rainforest Refugia Hypothesis”, which argues that only pockets of rainforest exist during glacial maxima in South America, Africa and Asia, leading to endemism in surviving species, separated by encroaching grasslands. There is evidence for and against this hypothesis on each continent.

        But even its opponents admit that the tropics were drier and more savanna-like during glacial intervals than during shorter interglacial, more CO2-rich episodes such as the Holocene.

      • Humans are one of the many African animal species which evolved in response to the spread of savannas, breaking formerly seamless forest into islands of wood among grasslands. As the continent dried out during the Oligocene and Miocene, East and South Africa were harder hit than the West African tropical forests. The Rift Valley accelerated this process. In the Pliocene, the first upright walking apes appeared, our ancestors, the australopithecines. Then with the onset of NH ice sheets, genus Homo arose early in the Pleistocene, if not just before.

      • QED.

        To believe as Crackers so blindly does, you have to d@ny even more objective reality than a creationist.

      • Compare and contrast birds of the two regions:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_the_Amazon

        “An immense number of bird species lives in the Amazon rainforest and river basin (an area which is nominally home to one out of every ten known species of animal). Over 1,300 of these species are types of birds, which account for one-third of all bird species in the world.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_Antarctica

        “The avifauna of Antarctica include a total of 45 species, of which 1 is endemic.”

        Many species are migratory, hence don’t live on the icy continent year-round.

        Bear in mind that Antarctica (5.41 million sq mi) is 2.6 times larger than the Amazon rainforest (2.12 million sq mi).

        The difference is even starker for many other animal groups, such as insects. And of course even more so for plants. There would be far fewer Antarctic birds but for the bounty of the surrounding Southern Ocean, whereas Amazonian birds get their sustenance mainly from the land upon which they live.

        Crracekrs is never more crackpot than on the comparative benefits of warm v cold.

      • Sun:
        a) the plants didn’t die out
        b) in whose scenario are we
        going to approach a glacial
        maximum anytime
        soon?
        c) what science says they
        “almost died out?”

      • Sunsettommy commented – “Meanwhile it doesn’t warm much more in the Tropical region anyway, due to its high water vapor level.”

        uah’s data says
        tropical warming = global warming
        to within 5%,
        since 1970.

      • Preserved plants
        found
        under glaciers
        were found to
        be deprived
        of CO2.
        Much other evi-
        dence that plants
        don’t grow well
        below about 250p
        pm CO2

      • Even with 1998
        and 2015 El
        Nino, tropics UAH
        warming at
        0.01C/year
        that’s SFA
        in such a
        variable
        sequence.

      • crackers345 November 9, 2017 at 5:51 pm

        Every possible line of evidence shows that C3 plants are severely stressed during glacials. We not only have their remains, but can look at stomatal density. They were gasping for more CO2.

        What happens in glacials is that climatic and vegetation zones get compressed. Forests once continuous become broken up into savannas, as noted above. Trees are stunted, as if at high elevation, yet are at sea level. The tree line moves south from present positions, which were then under ice sheets, to south of the ice sheet maximum extent. In North America, this means moving from present position in Canada’s NW Territories down to around the Ohio River or farther south.

      • crackers345 November 9, 2017 at 11:24 am

        Earth has already warmed about three degrees C since the depths of the LIA 300 years ago, and so far, plants are loving it.

        Flowering plants exploded in the Cretaceous, when it was so much warmer than now that there were no ice caps at all and cold-blooded reptiles lived above the Arctic and Antarctic circles. They evolved under conditions prevalent today in the tropics.

        You are spewing errant nonsense.

      • It should be obvious, but apparently isn’t to Crackers, that the past 2.6 million years have been the coldest since land plants evolved after the Ordovician Ice Age, with the possible exception of the worst intervals of the Carboniferous-Permian Ice Age, that plants prefer warmth.

    • Poor crackers still going on about the past and how much USA had emitted. I don’t know that we use the past as a guide for decisions otherwise plenty of countries are going to have to be given back to different peoples as just a starter.

      Generally when trying to start new arrangements with countries the past is ignored except obviously with the eco crazies in CAGW.

      • ldb, you ignore the past because it’s convenient for you.

        we’re attributing responsibility. If you want to
        do that by
        country, then
        admit that
        the US has already emitted more then
        twice what China has.

      • Is it only twice I would have thought it would be more, but regardless it is irrelevant. Try getting a peace treaty between two fighting countries if you don’t ignore the past :-)

      • USA led the world in industrial development, crackpot.

        All other countries would just LOVE to catch up to some small extent.

        1600 new coal fired power stations being build around the world

        PLENTY of extra CO2 for feeding the world.

        GET OVER IT !!!

      • AndyG55 November 7, 2017 at 9:47 pm ‘USA led the world in industrial development, …’

        Don’t forget the ‘Industrial Revolution’ and the ‘Dark Satanic Mills’ and the ‘Workshop of The World’ but I agree with everything else in your post (including …!).

  17. This is one of the most absurd logics I’ve seen for a very long time. There might be a million real reasons to step out, but this table is clearly not one of them. As Nick Stokes said above, this just shows that US is a big country. But it does not seem to matter as long as it supports “our” narrative. What a sad state of “debate”

    Emissions per capita in 2015 (similarly developed economies). EU – 6,9 tons, USA – 16,1 tons

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

      • As I said ” There might be a million real reasons to step out” and you just named one of them – the accord is not going to make “that much difference” but it does not make this post any less absurd.

      • Sven, here is the post headline you missed:

        “#COP23 In one graph, best reason ever why the USA doesn’t need to be in the #ParisAgreement”

        Try again.

    • The USA does not need the Paris Accord.

      The Paris Accord needs the USA.

      It is a pointless piece of nothing without the USA, not even worth cutting into 10cm x 11cm pages on a roll.

      Leftist countries like Germany, France etc will NEVER put in their fair share of fund.

      Like defense, they expect the USA to carry everything.

      • DJT is sticking it to the ‘Green Blob’ bless him for that if he achieves nothing else. Beating the Greens with the Red Wedge (topical note!).

  18. The Paris Climate Accord is a non-binding non-treaty. China and India demanded that every “shall” was replaced with a “will”. Where there is a will there is a way out of complying. China is notoriously building coal plants and exporting coal technology and claiming credits for cutting CO2. China has gamed the rest of the world in the WTO, and is gaming climate change in the same way.

    Follow the money, as we cut the funding to these cultists they will curl up in the dustbin of history.

  19. Switching from coal to the new combined cycle natural gas plants not only reduces emissions, but they are also cheaper to build, more efficient operationally, cheapest per Kwh electricity produced, can be built to any scale, can ramp-up and ramp-down easily, supply by pipeline is uncomplicated, nearby cavern storage allows purchasing to be strategic and/or cover a whole year.

    And natural gas plants run in the night-time when solar isn’t around, run when the wind is gone and meet seasonal and daily electricity needs without a loss in efficiency.

    And natural gas is now everywhere and essentially inexhaustible thanks to frackin’.

    Just skip the crappy coal emissions, and renewable unpredictability and run on the absolute best systems there is now and ever was, combined cycle natural gas.

    • At some point even Nat Gas runs out. Nat Gas to transition to nuclear is the only way forward… that is unless global human population crashes by over 90% in the next 80 years. Which is what the greens want.

      • With coal gasification, natural gas could fuel global economies for centuries into the future. Wouldn’t hurt to use nukes to power the gasification process, however.

      • I sat through a briefing a decade or so ago where someone in the exploration game said that there is enough natural gas on the West Florida Shelf to last a hundred years or more.

      • There is easily 100 years supply basically everywhere.

        Before that deadline, we will find a way inside the energy contained in atoms and basic matter which is not as dangerous as fission and not as impossible nor as radioactive as fusion. All the energy we will ever need is hiding right under your feet or right next to you in the wall.

      • 20 years before there was a working reactor that could produce electricity from its heat, the basic physics of fission were worked out.

        The basic ideas how to create the conditions for fusing hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium were worked out during and immediately after the Manhattan Project.
        No one still has figured out how to make a working fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes.

        And now some magical energy source that no one has figured out the physics of is going to replace everything for power? Maybe in a century. But not the next 30 years. And anything beyond 20 years is policy irrelevant, and pure fiction.

      • Crackers, YOU just made a claim without evidence. It is wrong anyway since there is little additional warm forcing left based on remaining “fossil fuels” to bring up anyway.

      • Cracker the best of trolls do not attack others for having no evidence when they present none of their own. Again total historical emissions are not still floating around. They are tied up in rocks, trees, sediments, animals, etc.

      • Warming: Warmer is better. Sea level rise. Trivial and not out of historic amounts. Ocean acidification. The Oceans are basic. CO2 can reduce their alkalinity slightly, but not so as anyone would notice.

      • “the more they contribute
        to warming, to sea level rise,
        to ocean acidification, etc.”

        ROFLMAO.

        What a load of UNPROVEN ANTI-SCIENCE AGW propaganda mantra,

        as well as being total and utter BS. !

      • You really are proving to be one of the most USELESS trolls ever to grace this blog.

        A non-science, nil-educated, mindless non-entity with a tourette syndrome fetish on his return key.

        Get a life, preferable without all the fossil fuels you are currently consuming.

      • crackers-
        I’m sure the reality of your life is the same as every other Lefty. Bitch and moan about those in power or who have money while talking a good game about the magic of sharing and how everyone will contribute equally in your shiny new world. While in reality still trying to get a leg up on everybody else while doing as little as possible to contribute.
        Tear everything down until we’re all rich! Worked so well in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc.

  20. So what? Who cares.? The whole thing is just a scam to pump money from US taxpayers to the riffraff of the third world. What ever CO2 the US emits is fertilizing plant growth all over the world. Be happy about it.

    [(EDITED) MOD]

      • Utter garbage.

        Temperature rise, if it were actually to happen, would greatly increase the bounty of the earth, by lengthening growing seasons and extending the tree line farther north.

        There is no loss of nutrition whatsoever from more CO2. You really ought to keep quiet on topics about which you know absolutely nothing, unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself. Which if you’re paid to do so, then OK.

        More CO2 means plants can make more carbohydrate, with less water. This increases the nutritive value of plants. What you appear to be trying out of sheer ignorance to assert is that the relative proportion of carbohydrate to amino acids goes down if CO2 increases without a concomitant rise in available nitrogen. Which is true. But if you also increase N, then plants will also make more amino acid under elevated CO2. The limiting input is N.

        But it is an ignorant falsehood to claim that more CO2 means less nutrition. Without more N, you get more carbohydrate and the same amount of amino acids. Only relatively are there fewer amino acids, not absolutely.

        This is the argument of an idiotic ignoramus. Better to keep your mouth shut than open it and let all know you’re a know-nothing falsehood spewer.

      • temperature rise counteracts any plant growth from co2 fertilization. as well as a loss of plant nutrition.

        You’re effing nutz. Do your homework. Talk to a biologist or horticulturist.

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 7:01 pm

        You’ve been shown the science. It doesn’t say what you so delusionally imagine it does. Not even close.

      • gabro: “Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”
        — “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html

      • gabro: “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
        — “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,”
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:25 pm

        As I said, utter garbage. In the case of this preposterous modeling exercise based upon temperatures that existed in the past, with no such effect on vegetation, but which won’t happen under any likely real scenario in the near future, I’ll add complete and total to the utter.

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:25 pm

        Already shown preposterous, as based upon modeled projections which won’t happen, and wouldn’t happen even if they occurred.

        Sheer rubbish.

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:26 pm

        More ludicrous lies by Mora, et al, taking unphysical projections as gospel, then imagining unphysical effects therefrom.

        The indisputable facts from actual earth history is that warmer means much more lush vegetation, from equator to pole. Facts are stubborn things. Agenda=driven models and projections are a waste of electrons.

        Got any actual data?

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:27 pm

        More modeling. But even so, you failed to mention that increased precipitation offset the effect of warming.

        Also, global warming doesn’t increase summer heat. It lowers winter cold, so none of this matters.

        Winter kill is what destroys wheat crops, not summer heat, unless there be no rain.

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:28 pm

        Again, no data cites whatsoever.

        More CO2 does not inhibit protein production. I’ve already explained to you what happens under CO2 fertilization.

        All you have is an assertion by somebody attached to UC Davis in some way on a CACA site.

        IOW, you’ve got nothing. Still.

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:29 pm

        Great. Now you provide a source for the assertion in your previous link, and guess what?

        He says exactly what I told you. To say that more CO2 inhibits amino acid production is a flat out lie, but naturally that’s how it’s spun.

        Bloom says just what I said, namely that the proportion of amino acids decrease. Why? Because there is more carbohydrate.

        There is no inhibition. The same amount of amino acids are produced, but the ratio falls because more sugar is produced, ie plant food, and food for the animals which eat the wheat.

        Thanks for providing a link supporting my accurate statement.

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:44 pm

        I avoided nothing. I showed that each of your links was not science, was patently false or supported exactly what I said.

        As always, you’ve got nothing. You post links that don’t support your anti-scientific assertions.

      • ” you’re avoiding all the
        science I cited.”

        Because none of it is science.

        It is agenda driven modelling

        Pity you don’t have the intelligence to see or understand the difference.

      • “TOTAL concentrations”

        Oh dearie me, crackpot
        shows it doesn’t
        understand the word
        “concentration”.
        In any sense of the word.

        The study shows
        that they are
        incompetent, not
        knowing how to
        increase nitrogen release.
        Things any farmer would
        know to achieve..

      • So why crackers, does the world presently enjoy its largest ever surplus of grain in storage, despite a greatly increased population over the last 30 years? Where is the “Catastrophe” after 60 years of warming?
        Hell, where is it actually detectably any warmer, other than the Arctic ( which is cooling again).

      • crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:55 pm

        That portion of his finding is contradicted by all other research, to include that done just down the road from my former wheat ranch, where the miracle strains of soft white wheat have been bred, contributing to the Green Revolution which has fed the world during the past 50 years.

        If water and N be held constant, more nutrition is produced under higher CO2. Period. Full stop.

        All the modeled garbage you cite is shown false by the experiment of geologic history. The Pliocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Pleistocene, and plants flourished. The Miiocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Pliocene, and plants flourished even more. Most of the Oligocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Miocene, and plants flourished yet more. The Eocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Oligocene, and plants flourished the most.

        Giant rhinos thrived in the lush Oligocene:

        As earth cooled and dried out during the Oligocene Epoch and Neogene Period (Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs), grasslands replaced forests, causing horses to evolve from little woodland browwers into big, fast, open country grazers.

        As CO2 fell from the mid-Eocene through the Oligocene and Neogene, C3 plants adapted by evolving the C4 and CAM pathways, but most crop plants and all trees are still C3.

        More CO2 means more food and fiber from plants. Period. Full stop. A fact shown not only by geologic and paleontological history but by lab experiences and field observations.

      • AndyG55 November 7, 2017 at 10:23 pm

        As with so much “climate change research”, rent-seekers simply assume the worst case scenario from worse than worthless models, then imagine the worst possible result from such unphysical assumptions and models, without reference to the real world.

        This is not “science”, as Crackers claims, but shamelessly false advocacy, which has cost the world trillions in treasure and tens of millions of lives.

  21. When you start the century as the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and your country is the self professed Saudi Arabia of coal there is a lot of low hanging fruit to harvest. Much like Europe picks 1990 to measure their CO2 reductions, America looks good if you pick year 2000. Still it won’t win the US much cachet at the COP23 parties because it’s all about the money.

  22. Living in Australia, it’s disappointing that we do not appear on the first 2 graphs but are still suffering from ridiculous CAGW-created targets.

    – not reducing our CO2 output (particularly galling as I live in SA with the most wind-generators of any state)
    – not reducing our coal use (even after closing down a couple of major coal-fired generation plants)

    All pain, no reward.

    • We aren’t on the graph because we actually emitted more than we ever have. The only way we got our numbers down is the use of some interesting accounting via offset credits.

  23. CO2 is irrelevant. I advocate keeping our environment clean, especially against pollution from industry, traffic and waste. We should also ensure that the environment is not damaged by chemical substances (agriculture, fertilizers and pesticides). We should ensure that enough living space remains for the endangered animals. The whole global warming industry is a bogus debate and money wasting machine

    • I advocate keeping our political climate free and clean from all special interest groups who seek to co-opt the power and resources of government to pad their pockets and equip them with greater power to advance their interests over those of the common good.

  24. From the article above:

    Most of the growth in CO2 emissions this century came from modernizing economies. And China and India dominated:

    Should India stop increasing CO2 emissions ?
    2015 figures:

    India’s CO2 emissions are 6.81% of world emissions & 1.9 T per capita.
    Respective figures for U.S. are 14.34% & 16.1 T per capita.
    Respective figures for U.S. are 29.51% & 7.7 T per capita.

  25. I think it’s wrong to use the Leftists’ deluded assumption that CO2 is an “evil pollutant” that must be sequestered…

    Overall, there are net BENEFITS to higher CO2 levels: 33% increase of crop yields per CO2 doubling, increased plant drought resistance, lower irrigation requirements, increase in global greening, slightly longer growing seasons, slightly earlier springs, slightly later winters, slightly less severe winters, slightly less crop frost loss, increase of arable land in northern latitudes, slightly higher tree-lines, slight decrease in desertification, etc.

    A decrease in US CO2 emissions is nothing to celebrate, especially if we have to suffer FALLING global temperatures over the next 50~100 years from collapsing solar cycles, and the tiny amount of CO2 warming will help offset some of the coming solar cooling.

    The “one graph(s), showing the best reason ever why the USA doesn’t need to be in the #ParisAgreement” is actually this one:

    or this one:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/plot/uah6/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/normalise

  26. A lot of words wasted in this comment column, responding to nonsense from Stokes, crackers, et.al.

    The bottom line is:
    We don’t need to be in the ‘Paris Agreement’ because CO2 is not a threat to the global environment.

    No other specious arguments are needed.

  27. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiening is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The “Paris Agreement” cannot have any effect on climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, severe weather events would still happen because such extreme weather events are part of the current climate.

  28. Very useful and snarfed. Obviosuly publicdomain. But compared to what basis? e.g USA was 25% of all global CO2 emissions. What is it now. Absolutes are better than % or differentials in terms of tonnes of CO2, etc. Obs. Ungrateful of Sunbury CEng.

  29. US could announce the most drastic GHG emissions reduction plan in the world but would still get bashed because it isn’t paying $$$ to the pot.

  30. I just read an article that claims that we need a new climate measurement system because all past measurements are bad. If that is the case then the Paris Climate Agreement must be discarded along with all past climate research because it is based upon bad data. In terms of measureing climate change, once the new meausrement system is in place at least a thousand years of measurements will be necessary in particular so that weather cycles can be filstered out so that we are left with measurements of just global climate change. All funding of climate reasearch should be stopped until we have at least one thousand years of good data to work with.

    • US emissions have not gained steadily since 1990. In the data presented, ours have fallen since 2005 and are not much higher than in 1990.

      China’s emissions, OTOH, have almost quintupled since 1990, and were over twice as high as America’s in 2015.

      Country: 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 2014 2015, Ktons CO2 (Rounded)

      China: 2,293,540 3,303,544 3,631,897 6,174,717 8,986,614 10,503,137 10,711,037 10,641,789

      USA: 5,003,720 5,294,648 5,873,867 5,886,318 5,519,484 5,255,530 5,312,226 5,172,338

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s