Oh noes! #COP23 attendees to hear that CO2 will rise again after 3 years of stability

From an outfit called “Future Earth” and the “We’ll always have Paris” department.

Global carbon dioxide emissions projected to rise after three stable years

By the end of 2017, global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and industry are projected to rise by about 2% compared with the preceding year, with an uncertainty range between 0.8% and 3%. The news follows three years of emissions staying relatively flat.

That’s the conclusion of the 2017 Global Carbon Budget, published 13 November by the Global Carbon Project (GCP) in the journals Nature Climate ChangeEnvironmental Research Letters and Earth System Science Data Discussions.

The announcement comes as nations meet in Bonn, Germany, for the annual United Nations climate negotiations (COP23).

Lead researcher Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: “Global carbon dioxide emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing.”

“With global carbon dioxide emissions from all human activities estimated at 41 billion tonnes for 2017, time is running out on our ability to keep warming well below 2 ºC let alone 1.5 ºC.”

“This year we have seen how climate change can amplify the impacts of hurricanes with stronger downpours of rain, higher sea levels and warmer ocean conditions favouring more powerful storms. This is a window into the future. We need to reach a peak in global emissions in the next few years and drive emissions down rapidly afterwards to address climate change and limit its impacts.”

China’s emissions account for 28% of global emissions. Budget co-author Glen Peters, research director at CICERO in Oslo, who led one of the studies, said: “The return to growth in global emissions in 2017 is largely due to a return to growth in Chinese emissions, projected to grow by 3.5% in 2017 after two years with declining emissions. The use of coal, the main fuel source in China, may rise by 3% due to stronger growth in industrial production and lower hydro-power generation due to less rainfall.”

This is key data from the 2017 global carbon budget.
CREDIT Future Earth/Global Carbon Project

“Several factors point to a continued rise in 2018,” said Robert Jackson, a co-author of the report, co-chair of GCP and a professor in Earth system science at Stanford University. “That’s a real concern.”

“The global economy is picking up slowly. As GDP rises, we produce more goods, which, by design, produces more emissions.”

Yet the team said that despite the growth in 2017, it is too early to say whether this is a one-off event on the way to a global peak in emissions, or the beginning of a new period with upward pressure on global emissions growth.

In the long term, emissions are unlikely to return to the persistent high growth rates seen during the 2000s of over 3% per year. It is more likely that emissions will plateau or have slight positive growth, broadly in line with national emission pledges submitted to the Paris Agreement.

The 2017 carbon budget at a glance

  • Global carbon dioxide emissions from all human activities (fossil fuels, industry and land-use change) will reach around 41 billion tonnes carbon dioxide in 2017.
  • Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry will reach around 37 billion tonnes carbon dioxide in 2017.
  • In 2017, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry are projected to grow by 2% (0.8% to 3%). This follows three years of nearly no growth (2014-2016) (GDP to rise 3.6% according to figures from the International Monetary Fund).
  • Chinese emissions are projected to rise 3.5% (+0.7 to +5.4%) in 2017 (GDP up about 6.8%).
  • U.S. emissions are projected to decline 0.4% (-2.7% to +1.9%) in 2017, lower than the decline of 1.2% per year averaged over the previous decade, with an unexpected rise in coal consumption (GDP up about 2.2% in 2017).
  • Indian emissions are projected to grow 2% (+0.2% to +3.8%) in 2017, compared to 6% per year averaged over the previous decade, due to significant government interventions in the economy (GDP up 6.7%).
  • European emissions are tentatively expected to decline by 0.2% (-2% to +1.6%) in 2017, lower than the decline of 2.2% per year averaged over the previous decade (GDP up about 2.3%).
  • The remaining countries’ emissions, representing about 40% of the global total, are expected to increase around 2.3% (+0.5% to +4%) in 2017.

Renewable energy has increased rapidly at 14% per year over the last five years – albeit from a low base.

The Global Carbon Budget is produced by 76 scientists from 57 research institutions in 15 countries working under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project (GCP). The budget, now in its 12th year, provides an in-depth look at the amount of fossil fuels that nations around the world burn and where it ends up.

GCP is sponsored by Future Earth and the World Climate Research Programme.

Future Earth’s executive director Amy Luers said, “This year’s carbon budget news is a step back for humankind.”

“We must reverse this trend and start to accelerate toward a safe and prosperous world for all. This means prioritising providing access to clean reliable energy to the hundreds of millions of people across the world without access to what many of us take for granted every day – electricity. Fortunately, now it is not only possible, but in most cases makes simple financial sense, to meet these electricity needs with renewable energy sources.”

Emissions decreasing in 22 countries

There was also some good news in the report: In the last decade (2007-2016), emissions in 22 countries (representing 20% of global emissions) decreased even as their economies grew. Technologies like wind and solar power have expanded across the globe by about 14% annually in recent years, according to the report.

Jackson said that he’s “cautiously optimistic” that the transition from fossil fuel burning to renewable energy will continue in the United States – even as the Trump administration rolls back policies aimed at tackling the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“The federal government can slow the development of renewables and low-carbon technologies, but it can’t stop it,” Jackson said. “That transition is being driven by the low cost of new renewable infrastructure, and it’s being driven by new consumer preferences.”

However, in 101 countries (representing 50% of global emissions) emissions increased in the presence of growing GDP.

Persistent uncertainties

Persistent uncertainties exist in scientists’ ability to estimate recent changes in emissions, particularly when there are unexpected changes as in the last few years.

“When there are unexpected changes in carbon dioxide emissions or atmospheric concentrations, there are questions raised about our ability to independently verify reported emissions,” Peters said.

Even though researchers may start to detect a change in emission trends early, it may take as much as 10 years to confidently and independently verify a sustained change in emissions using measurements of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

“The Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement will occur every five years, and this puts immense pressure on the scientific community to develop methods and perform measurements that can truly verify changes in emissions within this five-yearly cycle,” Le Quéré said.

###

NOTES

This media release is part of the Global Carbon Budget 2017, the annual update by the Global Carbon Project. It is based on the analyses published here:

Le Quéré et al. (2017) Global Carbon Budget 2017. Earth System Science Data Discussionshttps://doi.org/10.5194/essdd-2017-123

Peters et al. (2017) Towards real time verification of CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Changehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0013-9

Jackson et al. (2017) Warning signs for stabilizing global CO2 emissions, Environmental Research Lettershttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9662

DATA & MULTIMEDIA

A full media package, including full papers, infographics and a video is available here: https://stockholmuniversity.box.com/s/th0jrm1koopkvt4zpzh2wawvv06s0nek

Data and figures: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget

Data interface for exploring data: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org


So much for the Paris accord….Trump was right to pull the USA out of it, no effect -at great cost.

Advertisements

107 thoughts on “Oh noes! #COP23 attendees to hear that CO2 will rise again after 3 years of stability

  1. Skeptics said Paris would achieve nothing.
    Even green crazy agreed Paris would achieve nothing.
    Paris is visibly achieving nothing.
    Even the BBC is beginning to cotton-on.
    I am laughing.

    • I wish i could laugh, but i don’t.
      Achieve nothing, except siphoning out thousands of dollars from Average Joe’s electricity bill (adding up in thousand billion) to rich econuts building bird choppers and solar roof, or buying very expensive silly climastrologidoomy “science” studies and toy cars.

      • OH I get it, I criticised Pat Franks “paper” and now all my comments get held back.

        Open discussion is no longer permitted. Time to quit WUWT.

        thanks, it was fun while it lasted. Largely irrelevant today, with a cluster of about ten regular commenters. Make that 9.

        (Hey relax! Sometimes comments falls into moderation for no obvious reason) MOD

      • @Mod – the wonders of WordPress… There’s a pseudo-random number generator somewhere in that code, I’m certain of it.

        @Greg – if you must have a tantrum, kindly go have your scream at the sky, and come back when you have calmed down.

  2. Wasn’t it just 3 years ago that we were threatened with “catastrophic” increases in CO2 within 5 years and NOW the same Moronic Agencies are saying CO2 levels were “Stable” for the last 3 years? The more Imbecilic Reports threatening disaster, the more EVERYONE is beginning to understand the Lunacy of the CO2 “Crisis”.

    • … the same Moronic Agencies are saying CO2 levels were “Stable” for the last 3 years?

      What they’re talking about is human contributions to CO2. The actual CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to increase. link

      • CommieB

        Why is it still increasing? If the rise is baked in, then reducing emissions won’t change the increase. If limiting or reducing emissions doesn’t have an immediately detectable impact on the airborne CO2 count, then there is a real concern that It is not an linearly linked to ‘the increase’ as is claimed.

    • If the emissions leveled off for three years, why was there not an immediate leveling of the atmospheric concentration? The claim has always been that the increase is directly caused by human burning of fossil fuels. Apparently it isn’t.

      • Silly question.
        Will the level of your bath stop rising, if you keep the water inflow at the same level instead of increasing the flow as you did before?
        You’ll have to turn the fow to zero, not just level it off, to stop rise of the level.

      • If the emissions leveled off for three years, why was there not an immediate leveling of the atmospheric concentration?

        I’m trying to say this politely.

        The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not only a function of speed ∆CO2/∆t, but the actual emission history.

        If we now stopped totally all anthropogenic emissions, or created new sinks of same intake, the concentration should drop about as fast it now increases. If the emissions are halved, the concentration will stabilize. If emissions are stable, the concentration will slowly increase until balance is reached, that would be around 2xppmCO2, or whatever around that, I don’t believe in random expert guesses here because there are false prophets around.

        Ron, it is only an inconveniently bad argument.

      • Nonsense. It has been clear for many years now that our inputs have negligible impact. Eventually, it will be realized.

      • HUGS, you are guessing that the total history of CO2 in the atmosphere is limited to a few simple factors. What if there is a reverse tipping point? That is, what if the observed and reported greening of the world, due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, actually reaches a point where plant growth accelerates, that is, it does not have a simple linear relationship with CO2. The whole problem with modelling complex systems in simple terms is that the details in the complexity may be the emerging key factors. Now that’s not convenient.

      • @bluehuedo
        no study required.
        human add ~10 ppm/year, while the increase is only ~5ppm/year. At current temp and CO2 level some sinks eats up no less ~5ppm/year (it could be even more, if some other source is active; ocean out gassing, for instance). And basic chemistry hints at more active sinks/weaker source with higher CO2 level, so this eating up will not fade before CO2 level drop significantly.
        Hence max residence time of current human emissions is 2 years. If we stop now all emission, CO2 will drop ~5 ppm a year, back to 300 ppm in ~20 year only (well, a little longer, because sinks will begin to fade to their previous state with lower CO2 level…) . Nothing to worry about.

        than Abiously if we

      • …And that strikes at the heart or the warmunist argument. They could (heavy emphasis on “could” or “might, in some model universe) be right about much, but the mainstay of their argument is that it is always ‘too much too fast to be reversed’. This is now evidently not the case.

        But an argument that “If it starts to look serious we can simply build-out the nuclear fleet bigly, and the problem will go away in 10 years” doesn’t carry much currency with people determined to save the planet. They want, nay, need, a problem that can’t be fixed quickly if it starts looking like an actual problem. They are determined to save the planet and no amount of evidence that the planet isn’t threatened is going to stop them.

        We are left with the evidence still indicating that a) There is not a problem and b) We could fix it fairly quickly if it did become a problem.
        Unfortunately, that still makes some people very unhappy. I don’t think those people should be let near governance.

      • paqyfelyc November 13, 2017 at 10:18 am

        Silly question.

        The usual alarmist propaganda is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. If it were really as simple as your bathtub, we would be able to measure the change in atmospheric CO2 over time and observe that the rate of change had changed.

        The problem is that the propaganda and the science (even the alarmist version thereof) don’t line up.

      • propaganda is easier when you have hard fact to back you, and hard fact is CO2 level is so low (only ~400 ppm, 0.4%) that human emissions (pretty well known), and they show : ~10ppm/ year, while yearly increase is ~5ppm/year. So hard fact is, human contribute to CO2 rise (and it is good they do, or CO2 would start to fall back at -5ppm/year speed, starving all plant and extinguishing most life on Earth in less than a century — there, I, too, can be a doomsayer –)
        Notice that fossil fuel also reduce O2 in the atmosphere, but ~10ppm less oxygen a year just doesn’t show compared to the 25 % oxygen content of atmosphere, so this is not scary enough to be used for propaganda. Otherwise

      • The CO2 growth rate is going to be down considerably this year after the 3.0 ppm rise of last two years due to the El Nino.

        Month over Month CO2 growth down to 2.0 ppm in October and the Week over Week increase is just 1.3 ppm

        Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
        October 2017: 403.64 ppm
        October 2016: 401.57 ppm

        Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
        Week beginning on November 5, 2017: 404.27 ppm
        Weekly value from 1 year ago: 402.90 ppm
        Weekly value from 10 years ago: 382.05 ppm

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

      • @Bill
        Damn!
        This is worse that I thought!
        Sinks are eating up extra CO2 at slightly less than ~10 ppm a year now, instead of ~5 as I remembered.
        If we stop emissions now, slightly more that a decade would be enough to starve plants again at 300ppm level, and less than half s century do wipe out the whole CO2 based biosphere (which is pretty much all of it)
        Trumpet the alarm!
        We urgently need IPCCC (international panel on carbon cycle change), lots of grants, money, and subsidies to carbon cycle enhancement devices, lots of money to poor countries (harshly hit than rich, don’t ask why), action to prevent carbon cycle change refugees, and all related disaster (from tooth decay to malaria and stronger Hurricanes, etc.) .
        I candidate for chairman (i am not currently a sex-offender, but i can do whatever it takes to qualify)

  3. General when the uncertainty range is the same or bigger than that which you are claiming to measure you would say in scientific terms you are talking total BS . But this is climate ‘science’ when talking total BS is the ‘normal practice ‘ of this area.
    But they have to careful how they play this , claiming the ‘sky will fall if this happens ‘ is a real issue of credibility when it does happen and the sky ‘fails to fall ‘ Or at least it is real credibility problem outside of the ‘the cause ‘ or the professional climate ‘scientists’ known that faith comes before facts every-time.

    • We will have to wait for official figures, which should be available in the summer of 2018. Estimating the figure requires knowing how much fossil fuel is used for plastics, asphalt, and other end uses which don’t release CO2. This figure takes time to estimate, and it’s usually not estimated by scientists. I used to supervise individuals who packaged data used for this purpose.

    • good. this point is not worth a report, anyway.
      Neither is the increase in CO2 level from almost nothing to not much more, however, and i guess there was lots of BBC news reports on this insignificant, distracting from really relevant topics, fact.

  4. “The global economy is picking up slowly. As GDP rises, we produce more goods, which, by design, produces more emissions.”

    The answer is simple, return the world economy to the tepid growth of the past decade. After all, wasn’t climate change the driver behind the no-growth economic and regulatory policies of the last administration?

  5. Did the CRU change its name to the Tyndall Centre [sic]? And it’s a pity that those hurricanes with higher downpours don’t occur in China, where they are getting less hydropower because of less rainfall.

    I continue to be amused by the fact that, in the early days of global warming (er, climate change), the US was the devil because of our CO2 output. Everyone else in the world (well the Greens, at least) felt compelled to heap the worst criticism on us. Now, with US CO2 production down (frack on), and China as the great Satan of emissions, the world, and the world’s Greens, are strangely quite. Is this a form of environmental racism? Quick, call the kids at Penn.

    Oh, and how are all the signatories doing with their Kyoto commitments?

    • From Jackson et al. (2017) Warning signs for stabilizing global CO2 emissions, Environmental Research Letters: Abstract .. “Many positive trends contributed to this unique hiatus, including reduced coal use in China and elsewhere.” That’s a very nice way to say that the main cause was reduced emissions in the U.S. Tactfully, they don’t mention Germany at all.

  6. “time is running out on our ability to keep warming well below 2 ºC let alone 1.5 ºC.”

    I am sure the cutoff date was 1998.

      • Then the global carbon project doctored the results.

        The top graph shows temperatures and CO2 levels.
        There is no evidence of serious volcanic emission effects on temperature.

        The bottom graph show °C/decade and clearly highlights temperature declines following volcanic eruptions.

        Doctored to get those results.

      • Did you perhaps miss that the bottom graphs chart lower strat temperature (UAH LS)?

        “The top graph shows temperatures and CO2 levels.” Nope, it shows UAH LT v rate of change of CO2 (derived from MLO numbers) with human emissions overlaid (fossil fuels + cement from GCP in ppm assuming an airborne fraction of 0.48).

        “There is no evidence of serious volcanic emission effects on temperature.” Not even from large volumes of SO2 injected into the strat? I assume you’re joking. Which effects also markedly alter the evolution of oceanic CO2 outgassing, as the rate of change above shows.

      • “AJB November 13, 2017 at 6:46 pm
        Did you perhaps miss that the bottom graphs chart lower strat temperature (UAH LS)?

        “The top graph shows temperatures and CO2 levels.” Nope, it shows UAH LT v rate of change of CO2 (derived from MLO numbers) with human emissions overlaid (fossil fuels + cement from GCP in ppm assuming an airborne fraction of 0.48).

        “There is no evidence of serious volcanic emission effects on temperature.” Not even from large volumes of SO2 injected into the strat? I assume you’re joking. Which effects also markedly alter the evolution of oceanic CO2 outgassing, as the rate of change above shows.”

        Rate of change of CO2 as measured by MLO. Not through use of the OCO-2 satellite.
        A measurement center that mysteriously is unable to recognize or measure the massive hemispheric seasonal changes. Instead the MLO center magically applies a “global” rate of CO2 change…

        Riight.

        Then that rate of CO2 change is graphed alongside human emmisions{sic}.
        Emmisions{sic} that are based on some desk jockey’s estimates.
        What are the exact human CO2 emissions from:
        China?
        India?
        Myanmar?
        Malaysia?
        Indonesia?
        Pakistan?
        Iran?
        Turkey?
        Saudi Arabia?
        Russia?
        Venezuela?

        Guesses don’t work. Any claim to graphing “human emissions or emmissions{sic} are baseless guesses with the majority of CO2 emissions over the Earth wildly guessed.

        Back to the bottom stratospheric temperature graph. Just what is the total volume of stratosphere measured for temperature?

        What is graphed at the bottom is allegedly global temperature anomalies decadal change…?
        Temperature anomalies as measured at stratospheric levels. eleven to thirty miles in altitude; somehow representing a portion of the globe eleven to thirty miles below.

        Just where and why are satellite stratosphere global anomalies derived?
        What exactly does that anomaly represent?
        How many different satellites and their unique sensor measurements are rolled into that temperature anomaly?

        The fact that a satellite is capable of measuring stratosphere temperature does no mean people understand what that temperature represents.

        “Not even from large volumes of SO2 injected into the strat? I assume you’re joking. Which effects also markedly alter the evolution of oceanic CO2 outgassing, as the rate of change above shows”

        I stated what is shown on the graphs.

        None of the three graphs show volcanic eruptions lowering temperature. Declining anomalies would be expected.

        The bottom stratospheric graph looks like there is a relation, but the claimed temperature decline does not start for several months after the eruptions.
        Nor does the bottom graph claimed °C decadal trend appear related to the actual annual anomalies presented in the top graph.

        The top graph clearly shows anomalies climbing, admittedly troposphere, after Pinatubo.

        The middle graph of stratosphere anomalies may show a relation to temperature and volcanic emissions.
        Only temperature anomalies climb immediately after the eruptions.

        But, that graph also shows a general temperature anomaly decline through most of the satellite record. With what appears to be temperature anomaly step change declines that do not return to higher levels.

        Are you also claiming that those volcanic sulfates and ash particles are still circling the Earth lowering stratosphere temperatures while the troposphere temperature remain high?

        Doctored.
        With gross assumptions regarding cause/effects.

      • “Are you also claiming that those volcanic sulfates and ash particles are still circling the Earth lowering stratosphere temperatures while the troposphere temperature remain{sic} high?”

        Nope. But you appear to have finally appreciated the consternation part.

      • “AJB November 14, 2017 at 6:04 am

        Nope. But you appear to have finally appreciated the consternation part.”

        That was a painful way to get there.
        Outside of anything issued by the NOAA activist pretenders of science causes consternation.

        Now, that I finally understand your original comment, Thank you!

  7. “…The return to growth in global emissions in 2017 is largely due to a return to growth in Chinese emissions…”

    China? The so-called new leader in the fight against climate change?

    • Griff and Crackers will tell you that per capita they haven’t got to emit as much historical CO2 as us bad people so it’s only fair they get to do so.

      This is the whole stupidity of emission control system they signed up to. That anyone is “surprised” just means they are stupid because this was always obvious emissions can’t peak until somewhere between 2030 and 2050 under the agreement.

  8. Future Earth’s executive director Amy Luers quoted:.

    “This means prioritising providing access to clean reliable energy to the hundreds of millions of people across the world …”
    “…to meet these electricity needs with renewable energy sources.”

    That Amy Leurs, she is a real dolt if she believes what she says about electricity for the Third World’s poor countries. Imagine trying to build the huge number of wind turbines in a poor African country. And the necessary solar PV would take vast amounts of fertile land, and require security and lots of herbicide maintenance to keep the jungle growth at bay.

    Ms Luers is completely detached from the reality of the task and problems with crime, corruption, and lack of infrastructure in those areas, not to mention the pressing problems of how to pay to maintain those widely distributed renewable power systems.
    Having a coal or Nat Gas fired plant making power for a large area on only a hundred acres that can be secured and maintained by a small cadre of professionals is the only viable solution. But that is a fossil fuel solution. That’s a solution that her poorly-educated and/or idiot brain can’t handle.


    Her NGO must like hiring idiots, because Amy Luers surely qualifies as one with that amount of 3rd World energy ignorance.

    • I would suggest covering the Sahara with Solar Panels north to south and east to west then using transmission lines to get the energy where its needed. Just imagine what all that shade would mean to those snakes, lizards and insects living there, not to mention the smaller cold blooded vertribrates that also inhabit the area

      • Even if you just lay aside the immense environmental impacts such solar arrays bring to wide swaths of land,
        no one can get to any kind of reliable standard on an energy source that requires direct sunlight to produce electricity.
        That is unless you ignore the fact that those rural Africans will go back to burning forest-derived charcoal for night time cooking and lighting.

        Ms Luer’s statement on providing electricity to Third World countries is so deeply ignorant on so many levels it is mind boggling.

        But I’m sure though she is enjoying the champagne brunches, after-hour cocktail parties, lavish dinners with keynote speakers at Bonn’s COP23. Along with the thousands of other attendees who jetted there to party.

      • Quite an assumption there, Bryan A.

        Assuming that snakes, lizards, insects, birds, etc. that evolved to thrive in the Sahara would appreciate shade.

        Shade that will likely devastate the critters living in the Sahara.

        But then, enviro-nuts have never paid much attention to the death and devastation renewables cause.

    • She is good looking, so they are not THAT idiot. Who give a F about 3rd World energy anyway? Sex ratio in COP is much more important for that matter, especialy since they are kicking out sex professionnals.

    • You forgot to mention the elephants stampeding through the solar panels, the lions eating the maintenance staff and the giraffes having their heads chopped off by the wind turbines.

    • Your natural albedo enhancement is also the spring snow melt run-off to drive the hydropower turbines for your carbon-free electricity. Those pre-date the Climate Scam. Those hydro-power dams were built to provide the Pac NW its cheap power for sawmills and pulp mills in a time when no one cared about CO2.

      • They were primarily built to power aluminum smelters to build America’s great air fleets of the mid-20th century, such as Boeing’s bombers, back when the company was based in Seattle.

      • In NW Ontario they are spilling water over Hydro Dams because the Energy Board over committed to FIT Contracts. We are NoT tied into the Southern Grid where the nukes are and Gas Cogens. So their Bay Street buddies are getting .80 cents per Kw for Solar and .40 cents per Kw for Wynnd Power. Base Rate pre $mart meters was 5.1 cents per Kw. On Solar that’s 1500% more than Base Rate of o.051 cents per Kw.
        We are exploited Captive Consumers.

  9. The Earth is becoming greener and GDP is increasing – globally by their account – seems to go hand in hand.

    Increasing Carbon Dioxide has been occurring with the creation of “Renewables” at higher rates of their production. That adds CO2 now for the virtue signaling for reducing CO2 in the future, when to accomplish that would take decades of creating those “Renewables” when there would be less CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels directly now and in the future.

    So thank you for all these increases of CO2 by your ignorance that has helped greatly in Greening the Earth and increasing the GDP’s of countries.

  10. How do we know how much CO2 is emitted – really? Should we just watch Moana Loa or whatever it’s called? One notes a pack of lies in the above statements .

  11. Go look it up if you want to, but global economic growth has been running below the trend average for the last three years and is expected to be at or above trend in the two year ahead outlook. Europe, Japan, emerging markets, and commodities account for some of that departure and recent rebound. They are really commenting on growth here, not just emissions.

    That also gives a good example of how advocacy groups operate—half truths and lack of context in order to spin a message and policy misdirection.

  12. Could it be that they have been saying that emission have stabilised but CO2 growth in the atmosphere just keeps on merrily rising and could it be they are scared someone might notice and make the connection that it is not Anthropogenic sources that are causing the rise?

  13. Once again these estimates of the future are positively insane. Apparently these guys live andwork in the laboratory and don’t see what’s going on in the world of energy technology outside.
    Ever heard of electric cars, which GM claims is the future, and a near future at that? Or how about those molten salt modular nuclear reactors that can produce the cheapest power of any technology?

  14. “This year we have seen how climate change can amplify the impacts of hurricanes with stronger downpours of rain, higher sea levels and warmer ocean conditions favouring more powerful storms. This is a window into the future.”
    We have seen nothing. The laughably dumb idea that weather events were “amplified” by “climate change” is a complete fabrication. Their so-called “window into the future” is merely a koolade-inspired vision painted on a brick wall.

  15. The only way you cut emissions is by economic destruction and putting millions out of work. A recipe for unrest and eventual revolution.

  16. “This year we have seen how climate change can amplify the impacts of hurricanes with stronger downpours of rain, higher sea levels and warmer ocean conditions favouring more powerful storms.”

    Fact: The atmosphere is capable of holding 4% more moisture at 1 deg. C warmer than a century ago. Not 400% or 40%……….4%.

    Now, read the contradiction they make with the 2 statements below:

    1. “The global economy is picking up slowly. As GDP rises, we produce more goods, which, by design, produces more emissions.”

    2. “We must reverse this trend and start to accelerate toward a safe and prosperous world for all”

    Increasing emissions are produced from prosperity………but we must reverse that to have a prosperous world for all.

  17. Again it’s odd the connection between CO2 levels and emissions is clearly not that strong — an emissions trend that fluctuates wildly from accelerating to flat cannot dominate a smoothly accelerating concentrations trend, there’s no just way that math works without some fantastic coincidences. Despite some claims to the contrary the math is pretty simple — the difference in concentrations between 2017 and 2016 was larger than that between 2012 and 2011 even though emissions were the about the same in 2011 and 2016, and there’s nowhere in this system for lags to hide.

    Either these emissions numbers are way off (very possible) or human emissions aren’t dominating the trend in the concentrations.

    • Yep, they’re not. I’ve been beating this drum ’til my arms are ready to fall off. I’ve never seen something more obvious, but people still just can’t get it through their heads how puny our emissions are in the grand scheme of things.

      • Bart, hopefully you’re aching arms (and tattered drum) will get some justice that they are rightly due very soon. With la nina/solar min/downward amo at hand we may see the long awaited extended cooling that should lay this baby to rest. It should be obvious to all already, but soon there will be no d’nying…

        (speaking of d’nying, i’m surprised that you know who isn’t here ‘cotton bombing’ this latest carbon thread already)…

  18. If we take this report at face value, we find that China’s CO2 emissions are larger than the USA and Europe combined, and China’s emissions are increasing by 3.5% in 2017, while the USA emissions decrease by -0.4% and Europe’s emissions by -0.2%.

    So why aren’t all the do-gooders at the UN putting pressure on China to reduce their emissions, instead of bashing President Trump for pulling out of an “accord” that costs the USA billions of dollars in transfers to other countries, and imposes no restrictions on China?

    Probably because China has about 20% of the world’s population and nuclear weapons, and will do as they please, regardless of what the UN or anyone else says.

  19. In the Iain Dale radio slot on LBC London this evening, he chose (or was offered) a spokesman (sexist?) from E3G – https://www.e3g.org/. Mr Dale noted that the increase was largely due to China. No probs said the “expert”. China is actively reducing its reliance on coal so the problem won’t persist. Perhaps due to lack of time, he wasn’t asked about the hundreds of SE Asian power stations under construction, nor about the buoyancy of the Australian coal market. LBC has a range of presenters, from James O’Brien to Nigel Farage (that’s really a big range), so there’s not a natural alarmist bias.

    • did he?
      the fact is, human emission are well known (you just have to add up fossil fuel consumption), at ~10ppm/year, while the increase is only ~5 (so some sinks eat up ~5).
      So if ocean outgas, on top of that, this rules out ocean as a sink (too bad, he was our major candidate), and you have to find some other sink that account for 5+ anything ocean outgassed.
      And the winner is… ?

      • of course flora (more than fauna) is candidate, but you have to put some real number, and explain why this sink took so long to begin eating extra CO2 which is around for decades. Not so easy.
        And, btw, explain why scientists are saying that ocean pH is decreasing. Not that I trust them so much, but “they are wrong” isn’t enough, either.

      • Flora is just the first stage of carbon sinks. Fauna eat flora and fauna as secondary sinks. The Earth is becoming greener as a first stage sink and advances in farming adds to that. Population increase of humans and all livestock and longevity increase outweigh the mmortality rates, hunting and fishing is regulated more and increased wildlife populations.

        The Polar Ice has been increasing and cold water sequesters more CO2 where Hot water releases it.

  20. The man-made emissions have leveled off over three years, but the measured atmospheric concentration just keeps on rising as before. If man-made emissions were a real problem there would have been an immediate leveling off of the atmospheric concentration. You would think that they would notice a conflict of logic here and examine their theory….but No. The need for money is too great.

  21. In case that it may help here with this particular blog post and comments .

    Let start from the point that I have tried to show and put for some time forward, when it comes to the human CO2 emissions and the actual observed concentration trend.

    First there is some thing about human emissions and the actual human CO2 signature in the CO2 atmospheric concentration.
    This allows to a degree that it it could be considered and used as a tracer in the attempt of estimating and calculating the way the natural CO2 flux and the supposed impact of our CO2 emission in that flux and the CO2 concentration.

    As the numbers stand, especially the ones that no body can influence much, the impact of our emissions into the CO2 concentrations is non existent, making the claim of AGWers a proper mathematical impossibility, so clear and so bad that further up increase of human CO2 makes it even more obvious.

    It is actually the second “travesty”, the mission power of the CO2 human emissions into the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Let me put the point made in another easier and simple way to understand.
    “If the impact of human CO2 emissions in the CO2 concentration trend is zero, higher the human CO2 emissions, quicker and more obvious and easier this will become to realized.”
    Even a 12 year old can understand this argument, regardless of it being unacceptable or wrong

    They simply trying to extend time with their hocus-pocus in this one by trying to reduce the human CO2 emissions or the acceleration of such emissions over time.

    The second “travesty” at this point……..
    If some thing truly missing they can not be able to amplify it, same as with the first “travesty”, the missing heat, or warming, or better put, the missing hot spot.
    These guys always too obsessed with their amplifications and truly stubborn with their hocus-pocus.

    Whatever way you chose to take this…..think this first….the AGWers them self are reducing the amount of this “dirty” thing that supposes to subject all of us at this point in time to the greatest guilt of humanity since ever before and also since ever after…….without any actual “external” forcing involved…… strange isn’t it!

    But in the end, time will tell anyhow…..

    cheers

  22. “It is actually the second “travesty”, the mission power of the CO2 human emissions into the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    In case this creates some confusion, let me correct it to as it was meant :

    “It is actually the second “travesty”, the missing power of the CO2 human emissions into the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    thanks.

  23. I’m relieved carbon dioxide is going up again. This is the only way we are going to falsify this stuff. Let CO2 continue upwards and see what happens with temperatures – we’ve seen that even the team has worries and keeps bending them upwards. We are on a possible cusp of a big cooling and it it is like the 30 year drop that had the worriers predicting a new ice age caused by humans, of course. This will end the discussion by most but the “sick” group who will fall back into unkempt, bearded doomsters carrying sandwich boards with “The End is Nigh” among the happy population. More Climate Blues sufferers are in such a future.

  24. We do not need to worry about climate. 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 really zero. The AGW conjecture is dependent upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.

    • We do need to worry about climate. More heating would be fine, but LIA-like cooling, or even some new serious ice age, could onset any time for the very same those happened (reasons we currently know pretty nothing, unfortunately), wrecking food supplies, skyrocketing energy demand, pushing people out from area turning again to ice, etc. so we need to prepare for some disaster. We obviously could use the resources currently used in vain global warming fight.

      • Paqyfelyc in many ways uou are correct. We are observing a cooling happening from the solar minimum as the polar ice increases. Over year’s that can become a a problem that will catch people off guard. Especially when they are looking at reducing CO2 and Global Warming. Several large or a single massive volcanic event could cause rapid cooling… In that rapid that is still measured in many years. Societies don’t change as fast to handle such a problem. And as you imply the food supply could be effected rather fast. Sending panic through those unprepared. But that is Alarmism in itself. It has as much chance of occurring as a giant meteor with mass extinction event. At least Global Warming has advantages like are being seen with Global Greening and Global Fauna increases. I for one like that better than the future cooling that is happening.

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