CO2 Emissions Surge: Greens “Disappointed” by Economic Growth

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Financial Times is disappointed that hitting the Paris targets is looking even less likely, thanks to economic growth driving a rise in CO2 emissions.

China recovery pushes greenhouse emissions to global record

NOVEMBER 13, 2017 Tobias Buck in Berlin and Lucy Hornby in Beijing

Paris targets under threat as forecast 2% rise follows three years of zero growth

NOVEMBER 13, 2017 Tobias Buck in Berlin and Lucy Hornby in Beijing 58 comments Stronger Chinese economic growth will push global greenhouse gas emissions to a record high in 2017 after remaining flat for three years, dashing tentative hopes of a turning point in the world’s efforts to curb climate change.

A new report by the Global Carbon Project, an international research consortium, predicts that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry will rise 2 per cent this year. The report was released at the UN climate change meeting in Bonn on Monday.

“Emissions are following what countries have pledged — but what countries have pledged is nowhere near enough to meet the Paris objective,” said Glen Peters, co-author of the report and research director at the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo.

This year’s rise is especially disappointing as it follows three years of almost no growth in emissions despite a world economy expanding at a steady clip. In 2016, emissions were flat even though the world economy grew 3.2 per cent. One explanation for the uptick is that China’s economic slowdown in the middle part of this decade was more pronounced than official figures suggested. The GPC report concludes: “The world has not reached peak emissions yet.”

Read more:

The Carbon Project report is available here.

Remember all those wild green claims that economic growth had been “decoupled” from CO2 emissions? If the Financial Times authors are right, the whole decoupling thing was a mirage, caused by dodgy economic growth figures from the Chinese Government, who allegedly concealed the true magnitude of their country’s problems.

Now the global economy has finally turned a corner for real, King Coal is back – as always, the engine of global prosperity and rising living standards, especially for the world’s poorest.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 14, 2017 1:11 pm

Thanks Eric, for your many invaluable submissions, that keep us abreast of world-wide events involving AGW promotion efforts by its crusaders.

Reply to  hollybirtwistle
November 14, 2017 3:14 pm


Reply to  hollybirtwistle
November 14, 2017 3:33 pm

I thought those wind turbine thingies were supposed to be making fossil fuels uneconomic. They’re building them everywhere. Ditto for solar panels? Where’s the beef? Surely the massive move to renewables has had SOME effect on CO2 levels, no?

Reply to  Trebla
November 14, 2017 3:58 pm

It has the opposite effect on CO2. At least for the first several years, but then you have to replace them.

Clive Bond
Reply to  Trebla
November 15, 2017 2:27 am

Only when the sun shines and the wind blows.

Reply to  Trebla
November 15, 2017 6:49 am

Turbines & solar are only part time; fossil fuel plants are always required & are on standby. In this ‘tickover’ state they generate more ghgs than ever leading to ever increasing emissions of CO2. Only the half witted greenie liberal democrats could dream this up.

Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2017 1:25 pm

Oh dear, that is a sticky wicket. China being the new “climate leader” and all. Palm neet face.

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2017 9:35 pm

Yes, leadership! What Green heroes.

Who needs to sell solar panels? Who already (by 2013) produces too many and becomes a leader by installing the surplus at home?

“July 08, 2014
China’s Solar Panel Production to Double by 2017
J. Matthew Roney
China installed a world record amount of solar photovoltaics (PV) capacity in 2013. While this was the first time the country was the number one installer, China has led all countries in making PV for the better part of a decade. China now accounts for 64 percent of global solar panel production—churning out 25,600 megawatts of the nearly 40,000 megawatts of PV made worldwide in 2013—according to data from GTM Research.”

Good thing all those solar panels they are “churning out” are organically grown and compostable!

Old England
November 14, 2017 1:25 pm

The Paris Climate Agreement – AGREED – to a 46% INCREASE in CO2 emissions between 2015 and 2030 – including a Doubling of China’s emissions and a Trebling of India’s. And that increase is After the reductions in emissions from the developed world.

So why would anyone be surprised or puzzled by CO2 emissions continuing to rise ?

Did they just listen to the propaganda that came out of Paris rather than bothering to look at what was actually agreed ?

My take on the agreed increase was and remains very simple – it is that the clmate alarmists at Paris believedl that a 46% increase in CO2 emissions would have no measurable effect on global temperatures.

John of Cloverdale WA
Reply to  Old England
November 14, 2017 5:09 pm

To the UN, it is not about emissions but sovereign submissions.

Reply to  John of Cloverdale WA
November 15, 2017 6:22 am

No, it’s about transferring other people’s money, to them.

Tom in Florida
November 14, 2017 1:26 pm

In light of China being the likely culprit, it now shouldn’t matter that the U.S. is out of the Paris thing-a-ma-jig extortion scheme.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 14, 2017 1:36 pm

Tom, they still want our money. More, they still NEED our money to maintain their current life style.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 14, 2017 8:02 pm

“In light of China being the likely culprit, it now shouldn’t matter that the U.S. is out of the Paris thing-a-ma-jig extortion scheme.’

Honestly Tom, that is just so wrong-headed. I’m glad you boys have found each other here in this forum. You can natter away to each other to your hearts’ content and will do no harm. Nobody is listening to your crazy slant on reality.

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 14, 2017 9:27 pm

So Jack, you just “believe”.. because you very obviously have zero scientific knowledge.

You can live in your little “make believe” world and continue to consume fossil fuels etc while ranting mindlessly about “global warming” or some other non-event.

the word is GULLIBLE !!!

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 14, 2017 9:30 pm

And yes, people like Donald Trump ARE listening.

Its the AGW farce that is being largely ignored

1600 new coal fired power plants being built around the world.

Increase of some 40% percent of CO2 emissions.

Great for the world’s plant life , and in fact ALL life.

The AGWers have LOST the anti-CO2 agenda, hands down. 🙂

Just the political agenda and its attempt to destroy Western civilization, to squash now. 🙂

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 1:31 am

Gee AndyG – it wouldn’t surprise me to find Trump does read you guys. That is the level of intellect you hope to impress? You may well succeed to that extent then!
It’ll do you no good – Trump is fast discrediting the right wing personality syndrome.

David A
Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 2:58 am

Well Jack, you have contributed exactly zero to any articulation of “science” or why CAGW is so bad, or exactly how the Parris Accord would solve any problems even if implemented.
However, you have ignored tens of thousands of PHD scientists, and well over a thousand skeptical peer reviewed papers. I suggest you begin with reading the NIPCC reports.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 3:30 am


You must be sexist AND racist.

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 3:51 am

Your desperation is showing…. along with your zero intelligence or science comprehension.

1600 coal fired power stations , Jack

40%+ increase in CO2 emissions

and there is NOTHING that AGW trollups like you can do about it. 🙂

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 4:12 am

hey Andy – how many coal plants being built in the US? None isn’t it? and 12 or more closing this year?

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 6:05 am

‘In light of China being the likely culprit, it now shouldn’t matter that the U.S. is out of the Paris thing-a-ma-jig extortion scheme.’

‘Honestly Tom, that is just so wrong-headed.’

Honestly I don’t understand giving China a free pass to emit and then going after Trump supporters like you did.

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 6:24 am

Wow Jack, such a witty comeback.
I would ask if that really is the best you can do, but we both know that it is.

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 6:32 am

Ooh boys – temper, temper! Remember I have zero science, zero intelligence, I’m racist and sexist…in truth I’m just a blade of grass who’s found a cell phone lying on a lawn and I’m winding you up. I LOVE CO2!
You boys on the other hand, are so SMART – please be kind to a blade of grass! Go on, make all the CO2 you can – I LOVE IT! I don’t give a damn about your species or any other damn species – FEED ME!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 10:44 am

Don’t feed the troll. Let his comments pass without acknowledgement.

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 1:06 pm

Tom in Florida, how are those sunny day floods behaving?

Reply to  Jack Davis
November 15, 2017 1:28 pm

“how many coal plants being built in the US?”

GAS, griff. and you KNOW that. !

Why display you continued ignorance, as you do in every post.

November 14, 2017 1:26 pm

So the countries that planned to increase emissions as a “catchup” to the west are now doing it and raising overall world emissions. What a surprise.

Reply to  breed
November 14, 2017 2:40 pm

Not to mention the help they are giving other countries, 1600 new coal fired power stations around the world, so I’ve heard.

The Anti-CO2 AGENDA has FAILED miserably on the CO2 front, but is still proceeding apace in its destruction of many Western Civilisations

What is really bizarre, is that there are still many AGWers that seem to WANT this destruction of their lifestyle to occur.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  AndyG55
November 14, 2017 4:59 pm

What is really bizarre, is that there are still many AGWers that seem to WANT this destruction of their lifestyle to occur.

Well the greens have always flirted with being a death cult. Just look at their high priests like Ehrlich and Holdren.

Steve Case
Reply to  AndyG55
November 14, 2017 5:37 pm

What is really bizarre, is that there are still many AGWers that seem to WANT this destruction of their lifestyle to occur.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong 1992

Reply to  AndyG55
November 14, 2017 6:22 pm

“What is really bizarre, is that there are still many AGWers that seem to WANT this destruction of their lifestyle to occur.

Either that, or they are SO DUMB, that they don’t realise it is happening !!

DOH !!

Reply to  AndyG55
November 14, 2017 8:38 pm

U.S. Government Printing Office

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George H.W. Bush (1992, Book 1) June 12, 1992

Speech by Pres. G.H.W. Bush, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, June 12, 1992

Re: Maurice Strong role.

U.S. signed onto the 1992 Earth Summit.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 14, 2017 9:17 pm

“What is really bizarre, is that there are still many AGWers that seem to WANT this destruction of their lifestyle to occur.”

Andy, what is fully understandable is the reaction against knowledge and its acquisition evidenced in this forum. Sad, but an expected aspect of human psychology.
What your ‘AGWers’ want is timely action, informed by science. That is what you guys are arguing against.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 14, 2017 9:24 pm

But AGW its NOT informed by science… it is uninformed, model based nonsense.

There is no empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in or convective atmosphere.

There is NO sign of any CO2 warming in the satellite data. NONE

No sign of CO2 based warming anywhere.

You believe in CO2 forced AGW, then have signed up to a FABRICATION, a MYTH … a LIE !

Reply to  AndyG55
November 14, 2017 10:06 pm

Correction: G.H.B.Bush Speech,1992 Rio Earth Summit

Reply to  AndyG55
November 15, 2017 6:25 am

The world’s losers are using the green cult to destroy those who have succeeded.
Like socialism, it’s a philosophy based on jealousy.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 15, 2017 12:28 pm

AndyG55 November 14, 2017 at 6:22 pm

“What is really bizarre, is that there are still many AGWers that seem to WANT this destruction of their lifestyle to occur.
Either that, or they are SO DUMB, that they don’t realise it is happening !!

Or, perhaps, that they intend the destruction of – wait for it – other peoples’ lifestyle.
But not their own. Certainly not.
Maurice Strong – although he denied it – was rumoured to be a billionaire, at one point [per the ever correct, peerless, Wikipedia].


November 14, 2017 1:30 pm

How’s German doing? Hear N.Carolina “wood pellets” and wood to heat German homes,.,. not to mention Nuke decommissioning is going to be quite a challenge. More Wind and Solar to the rescue?? {I think not}

Reply to  Sparky
November 15, 2017 12:39 am

Germany got 38% of its electricity from wind/solar/biomass (no imported wood) in the year to end October.

It got 44.1% of its electricity from renewables in October.

So thanks for asking – its doing fine.

(No power outages during that time, even in May when it had a day of 85% renewable power)

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 5:49 am

Renewables from the total primary energy consumption is about 15%. So pick a month and talk about electricity if not even just generated electricity and not the total consumption equals misleading or possibly bullshitting.

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 6:27 am

Griff, all the news that’s fit to make up.

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 7:08 am

Germany relies on imported nuclear power from France and coal fired (keep on stoking) power from Poland as it dithers about what to do next. It is also commissioning new coal mines in Alsace – ask that Guardian bloke George Mombier

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 8:48 am

If you are ready to pay the 2X price, you surely can have much renewable.
German leaders decided they wanted to do that. Not sure all German people agreed. Actually, if they agreed, leaders wouldn’t need to subsidize renewable with special taxes that double the electricity price: people would buy them of their own even if they are more expensive (especially when some dummkopf believe they aren’t even more expensive…).
It take the same kind of dummkopf to boast about this, as if it were some success story for renewable.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 9:51 am

Well of course no outages…They still have interties to reliable fossil fueled energy sources. Zero Fossil backups = major outages…Like South Australia

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 2:37 pm
Come on Griff, these boys don’t want your numbers, they want FACTS. Don’t claim your numbers are facts, the boys will decide what facts are thank you.
Some claim it is a fact that the boys are ignoring the entire body of planetary science built over many decades – but that is not a fact, is it boys!

Reply to  Sparky
November 15, 2017 1:08 am

How are the woodlands that have been cut over for wood pellets farming?
Are they replanted or undergoing natural regeneration?
If the latter then experience in the UK shows that problems could arise with deer and rabbits grazing the regrowth.
Has anyone some pictures they could show of the cut areas and regrowth?

Reply to  StephenP
November 15, 2017 9:52 am

Put cats in the regrowth areas and they will take care of the rabbit situation. Cats get the baby rabbits.

November 14, 2017 1:37 pm

So the country that is ‘championing the way to renewables’ is using even more coal than ever.

Every time someone makes that ‘China / renewables’ claim from now on, show them the above article.

November 14, 2017 1:51 pm

Awe shucks, and I was sequestering my carbon in balloons for nothing.

john harmsworth
Reply to  RWturner
November 14, 2017 2:17 pm

Aren’t they overheating? Lol!

Svend Ferdinandsen
November 14, 2017 1:54 pm

Has anyone here seen the questions asked in the “Green energy barometer; that Ørsted, former Dong made regarding peobles perception on “green Energy”?
I have looked for the questions but not been able to find them.

November 14, 2017 2:09 pm

There never was a decoupling, and the three year supposed slowdown was a figment of economic imagination—likely China’s. Mauna Loa showed no such thing in the Keeling Curve.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ristvan
November 14, 2017 2:40 pm

Your unstated assumption is that it is anthropogenic CO2 that is driving the Keeling Curve. The satellites are hard pressed to identify the industrial anthropogenic sources, while the natural sources for the Carbon Cycle are quite obvious!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 14, 2017 3:43 pm

Clyde, i heard a joke here at wuwt the other day. It really brought istvan to mind:

You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can’t tell him much…

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 14, 2017 9:14 pm


Some amount oft the manmade CO2 stays in the air.
Some of it goes into the biomass and is released in fall/winter. This you can see at the annual pulsing of the Keeling Curve.
Some of it is absorbed by the cold polar oceans and some of this is calcified there. Some of it is released years later in the warm tropic oceans. This release seems to be controled by global temperature with some months time lag.

The problem is to quantify the amounts.

What we know is an increase in CO2 in the air since the 1950ies of about half the amount which is released from burnig fossil fuels.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than some thousand years ago.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 14, 2017 9:19 pm

“The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than some thousand years ago.”

And the plants are LUVING it !!!
comment image

November 14, 2017 2:10 pm

Climate Alarmism is a textbook example of presenting only a subset of the facts, it loves to talk about emissions, for finger-pointing and wailing purposes, but keeps quiet about the elephant in the room, which is the total CO2 in the atmosphere:

The words “futility” and “failure” spring to mind.

Bill Illis
Reply to  climanrecon
November 14, 2017 3:50 pm

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 1.4 ppm. It could average below 2.0 ppm for the year which would be the lowest rate since 2012.

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

November 14, 2017 2:14 pm

And now is the full climate treachery of Obozo’s climate “deal” with China laid bare. That’s precisely what the moron – or more likely western economic saboteur – signed up for. He not only utterly screwed over those who wanted carbon dioxide reductions but was attempting to utterly screw over the entire US economy simultaneously.

Why aren’t FT ranting about the Obama “deal” which made this outcome inevitable? It was inevitable anyway but any way you stack the “deal” it had only a single conceivable purpose and that was to cripple the US economy while boosting the economies of its major competitors and distributing its remaining dwindling wealth around the globe in “climate reparations”.

How that thing is still at liberty in the US is forever beyond me.

November 14, 2017 2:16 pm

There is a lot more to the story of global economic growth changes than China.

November 14, 2017 2:19 pm

The Bloomberg wishful thinking is here. This amounts to IEA writing the 5-year plan, with fiction.

November 14, 2017 3:00 pm

In terms of climate change it just does not matter. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the rise in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a meaureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.

The AGW conjecture depends upon a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on any planet in the solar system including the Earth. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.

November 14, 2017 3:44 pm

What the article failed to point out is that the people who sucked up the green government corruption dollars have done quite well over the last several years. Now that the working classes around the world are getting some relief, they will crush us back into poverty with their green communist fists. Shame on us for making a living at the expense of Gaia but it’s OK to become rich like AL Gore at our expense.

November 14, 2017 3:44 pm

It is fiction indeed. In fact, as has been demonstrated in a recent post on this site, the slight uptick in surface temperatures since the industrial revolution began can easily be explained by assuming a random walk. 70 up years, 62 down years. No big deal there.

Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2017 3:45 pm

Regardless, it’s going to be hilarious watching the COP23 partygoers try to put a brave face on all this.

November 14, 2017 3:46 pm

How is it that CO2 is rising cataclysmically in 2017? According to: , CO2 was 412.63 ppm on April 26, 2017 (NOAA-ESRL) and is now down to 404.51 ppm on November 13, 2017 NOAA-ESRL (that’s 0.0405% of the earth’s atmosphere containing a life-sustaining gas). And, on November 13, 2016, CO2 levels were at 402.47 ppm NOAA-ESRL. Again, how is this cataclysmic and where are they getting their CO2 figures? Apparently not Mauna Loa.

Reply to  Fred
November 14, 2017 5:11 pm

It’s imaginary math, Fred. It comes under that heading “It IS if I say it IS!” and facts are ignored.

Reply to  Fred
November 14, 2017 8:18 pm

CO2 drops during the growing season. Either adjust for expectations or only compare year-to-year.

Don’t compare April to November.

Crispin in Waterloo
November 14, 2017 3:55 pm

At least 400m people are dependent on coal for space heating and cooking, 234m of them in China.

If the atmosphere is a shared resource, they have a right to emit into it on an apportioned basis (if you believe in fairness). Emissions from coal burned to generate electricity should be accounted in the same manner (if fairness still applies). I’d like to see a per-capita emissions inventory for basic electricity and domestic needs. The arguments might shift opinions about who emits what and where.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 14, 2017 9:37 pm

France has the lowest CO2 Output per Capita. India is No. 20, Germany No, 29 and the US are somewhere at No 40.

This is from a recently ranking of 60 States.

Reply to  naturbaumeister
November 14, 2017 9:53 pm

Here is the link to the Climate Change Performance chart.comment image

US Rank 43, China Rank 48, Canada 55, Australia 57, Saudi Arabia, the last: 62.

Reply to  naturbaumeister
November 15, 2017 5:52 am

That graph is just some politics.

Reply to  naturbaumeister
November 15, 2017 9:01 am

France will increase it significantly, since watermelons succeeded in their german-like agenda: closing of nuclear plant, forbidding fracking for gas or oil, etc.

Reply to  naturbaumeister
November 17, 2017 5:03 am

France has just annonced that they will stick to their Nukes bc of having no CO2 emissions.

Coeur de Lion
November 14, 2017 3:58 pm

Good good good

November 14, 2017 4:13 pm

Of course emissions are rising. It’s all that renewable energy!

Germany #1 CO2 emitter in Europe, That’s ‘Energiewende’ for you!

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 15, 2017 5:58 am

Lol yes. +1.

November 14, 2017 4:13 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“NOW the global economy has finally turned a corner for real, King Coal is back – as always, the engine of global prosperity and rising living standards, especially for the world’s poorest.”

MEANWHILE, back in novelty-energy land:

“KAPUT! German Wind Farms Set for Dismantling as Subsidies Dry Up”

WHEN the wind don’t blow, or the subsidies cease to flow – the power don’t flow and the windmills will GO!

EXCELLENT news for businesses, families, workers and the impoverished…

“SEVERAL thousand wind turbines in Germany are likely to be closed down in the next decade because they will no longer receive any subsidies. “If electricity prices do not rise over the next decade, only a few plants will survive on the market without subsidies,” says an analysis by the Berlin-based consulting firm Energy Brainpool.”

“ON another note, the Kiel, German-based Kieler Nachrichten (KN) reports: “Thousands of wind turbines will be supposedly dismantled over the coming decade because the state subsidies will run out”.

Reply to  Jamie Spry
November 15, 2017 12:41 am

You have seen the IEA forecasts for coal out to 2040 just published?

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 4:22 am

The anti-CO2 agenda will be over at some stage griff.

Countries can’t afford it.

The clean-up bill for removing defunct wind turbines and toxic solar panels will be enormous.

When the coming cooling trend starts to bite, the AGW idiocy will collapse into the abyss.

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 6:19 am

That’s the same group that said US shale oil would be a non-issue for markets in (now) less than 10 years.

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 7:27 am

Onwards and upwards

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 9:19 am

Gas outcompete just every other energy, even nuclear, and everything point at it being even more competitive in coming years. It would be quite strange for other energy, including coal, to not suffer

November 14, 2017 4:36 pm

check out this
CrossRef citations
Environmental Communication Forum: Debating Climate Science Consensus Messaging
A Reply to Cook and Oreskes on Climate Science Consensus Messaging
Warren Pearce, Reiner Grundmann ORCID Icon,

Michael Jankowski
November 14, 2017 4:36 pm

But-but-but China is the new LEADER in the FIGHT against CLIMATE CHANGE.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
November 15, 2017 9:20 am

Well they. They fight actively to prevent any cooling, just in case.

Bryan A
Reply to  paqyfelyc
November 15, 2017 9:54 am

Responsible for almost 1/3 of fossil fuel released CO2 production worldwide

Derek Colman
November 14, 2017 5:14 pm

Would someone like to explain to me how global CO2 emissions are measured? Of course it’s impossible. The figures given are nothing but a guesstimate, and there is no way at all to measure natural emissions.

Reply to  Derek Colman
November 14, 2017 10:05 pm

The emissions can be calculated by the sales numbers of fossil fuels. This is fairly exact.

November 14, 2017 5:17 pm

No more subsidies for this quackery! EVER! There is ZERO excuse for depriving people of light and heat in the winter, especially since the forecast for Europe/Germany on Accuweather said ‘lots of snow and cold’. NO EXCUSE for it. This isn’t the Dark Ages.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Sara
November 15, 2017 11:34 am

The greenies would like it to be… 🙁

November 14, 2017 6:45 pm

It is very good news that CO2 emissions are going up. That’s because a sustained fall or even a plateau in CO2 emissions would permit the argument that non-rising temperature was the result of CO2 emissions reductions. Hopefully the rate of CO2 emissions increase will stay up too, to completely destroy the argument. Not that the media take any notice when climate alarmists’ arguments are destroyed ..,,

Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 14, 2017 7:17 pm

Not if atmospheric concentrations continue to rise at record rates. (even alarmists won’t be able to get away with that one)…

Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 15, 2017 9:21 am

The utter failure will more evident

November 14, 2017 7:10 pm

Sara, unfortunately as far as energy is concerned this IS the Dark Ages in the West. Instead of real, data-based science leading to sensible evidence-based energy policies, we have religious beliefs and voodoo economics driving virtue-signalling policies that are destroying our reliable, affordable baseload energy sources in favour of unreliable, intermittent energy sources. I could list a hundred essential manufacturing industries that will cease to exist in the West if we don’t stop this madness – e.g. having to import all our steel, copper, aluminium, nickel, etc. instead of smelting it ourselves, increasing costs and destroying employment, for what?

November 14, 2017 8:11 pm

How is it ascertained definitively that this is due to humans? Seems to me that this must be a terrestrial cause more than humans, especially given that the last few years is flat, and now a projected 2% increase? We certainly didn’t have a global recession the last 3 years that led to less CO2 production, especially given we just had a significant El Nino in 2015/16 which should have produced the opposite, which would be more natural CO2 outgassing. And now with cooling Pacific oceans, that should see some uptake of atmospheric CO2. It just doesn’t add up to me, but then what do I know. Maybe I missed something.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 14, 2017 10:09 pm

Possibly there is a time lag between ocean temperature rise and outgassing. Plus the annual swinging.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 15, 2017 12:40 am

yes, absolutely the CO2 is ‘human’

CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel has a different isotopic signature

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 4:16 am

But the plants still LUV it, don’t they griff.


Been luvin’ that CO2 ever since it started lifting from the “just surviving” level of 250ppm

MUCH more needed though, wouldn’t you agree. !

Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 5:57 am

Philosophically, your point is invalid. The emissions are not that easily attributable as the reason, as upwelling sea surf. temps also affect the result. It is like telling 180% of the atmospheric co2 increase is due to human emissions! Which probably kind of holds.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 12:56 pm

Nope, the same “isotopes” come from natural sources too (and nobody is measuring those) so that argument has long been a non-starter.

Peta of Newark
November 15, 2017 2:22 am

This one draws/begs the question as to define the signal seen at Mauna Loa and the signal calculated by adding up everyone’s consumption of coal, gas and oil.

Where is the connection between emissions and the amount (ppm) of CO2 recorded – where does the CO2 actually go?
But we are now finding out – it accumulates over Equatorial/tropical forests – OCO2 Sputnik tells us so.

Why does it go there, especially when at the same time we are told that the forest is growing faster because of it? It’s an even worse case of positive feedback than the originally posited GHGE
How do warmists explain it? Please. I really do want to know.

Also exactly how an alkali thing like ‘The Ocean’ is going to spontaneously give up (out-gas) and acidic thing like CO2? Utterly trashes Entropy and Le Chatelier.
Henry’s Law applies to fresh water = pH7 neutral water – not seawater at pH8.2

Then the height of the 254Kelvin isotherm is rising = increasing in area at 350,000,000 square metres annually. That is a heat loss – NOT heat trapping. Trapped heat would mean the isotherm would be falling.

Then some muppets recently here claimed that absorbing solar radiation in the atmosphere will have a greater heating effect that absorbing it on the ground. For the air yes, but the atmosphere can and does dump energy faster than a really fast thing. Does NOT warm the surface – another cooling effect.
Complete madness.

Also, the spectrum of the radiation leaping off that point is ‘flattened’ and ‘more diffuse’. Lower peaks within it.
THAT stacks up perfectly with GHGs not actually ‘trapping energy’ and or reflecting it to the surface but smashing the upwelling photons into more numerous but smaller, less energetic and colder photons scattered across the spectrum. Like the phosphor in a fluorescent tube.
Thus GHGs are speeding the descent of energy down the thermal gradient that exists between here and ‘outer space’. They are having a cooling effect – easily understood by their high molecular weight compared to oxygen and nitrogen.
THAT is why Al Gore features in the Fail Files here – his experiment MAY have had some trapped energy but its effect was swamped by the high thermal conductivity of the CO2.
As per 100’s of similar experiments out there on Utube

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 15, 2017 2:27 am

…. ‘that point’ being the 254K isotherm, average height 7,200 metres AMSL

Patrick B
November 15, 2017 2:48 am

Can we even measure CO2 emissions from “fossil fuels and industry” to within 2 percent?

Reply to  Patrick B
November 15, 2017 2:48 pm

We are measuring atmospheric CO2 Patrick. That is easily done accurately.
Industrial emissions are estimated from fuel consumed, industrial methods etc. Not so accurate, but accurate enough to draw conclusions.

November 15, 2017 3:03 am

the developed word paid its own way, installing fossil fuel power and using the wealth creates to clean up emissions. none of this had anything to do with co2.

now China and India are being paid to cleanup their emissions under the umbrella of co2. again nothing to do with co2. rather because the people of India and China don’t like dirty air. question. why the double standard?

November 15, 2017 4:12 am

Must be a bit of a surge of CO2 from Bonn as well.. 😉

George Lawson
November 15, 2017 7:16 am

‘Paris targets under threat as forecast 2% rise follows three years of zero growth,

If there has been three years of zero growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, then why is it that China are being blamed for the sudden increase. China has been building power stations and developing their industry for a number of years now, all of which must surely have had an effect on the gradual increase of CO2 over the last four years. So how do the ‘experts’ come up with their conclusions, and how do they know that China is the sole culprit? Surely India, Pakistan and other rapidly developing countries must have had some effect, not just over the last year but over the last four years..

November 15, 2017 9:04 am

We need to join the earth’s biosphere and celebrate when CO2 reaches 500 ppm! That would be a authentic “Earth Day”. Then only 500 -1000 ppm more to reach optimum levels.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  beng135
November 15, 2017 12:23 pm

Hear hear! If plants could protest, they’d have signs saying “CO2 – It’s what’s for dinner”!

Joel Snider
November 15, 2017 12:30 pm

Anti-prosperity, anti-human. Everything these guys force upon us basically amounts to ‘let them eat cake.’

And this is the high moral ground.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights