The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy
Remember Paris? It was not even two years ago that the celebrated climate accords were signed — defining two degrees of global warming as a must-meet target and rallying all the world’s nations to meet it — and the returns are already dispiritingly grim.
This week, the International Energy Agency announced that carbon emissions grew 1.7 percent in 2017, after an ambiguous couple of years optimists hoped represented a leveling off, or peak; instead, we’re climbing again.
Even before the new spike, not a single major industrial nation was on track to fulfill the commitments it made in the Paris treaty. To keep the planet under two degrees of warming — a level that was, not all that long ago, defined as the threshold of climate catastrophe — all signatory nations have to match or better those commitments. There are 195 signatories, of which only the following are considered even “in range” of their Paris targets: Morocco, Gambia, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India, and the Philippines.
This puts Donald Trump’s commitment to withdraw from the treaty in a useful perspective; in fact, his spite may ultimately prove perversely productive, since the evacuation of American leadership on climate seems to have mobilized China, eager to claim the mantle and far more consequential to the future of the planet because of its size and relative poverty, to adopt a much more aggressive posture toward climate. Of course those renewed Chinese commitments are, at this point, just rhetorical, too.
More here
From the recently released IEA report:
Global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.4% in 2017, an increase of 460 million tonnes (Mt), and reached a historic high of 32.5 Gt. Last year’s growth came after three years of flat emissions and contrasts with the sharp reduction needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The increase in carbon emissions, equivalent to the emissions of 170 million additional cars, was the result of robust global economic growth of 3.7%, lower fossil-fuel prices and weaker energy efficiency efforts. These three factors contributed to pushing up global energy demand by 2.1% in 2017.
The trend of growing emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise in carbon emissions, some others experienced declines, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan.
The biggest decline came from the United States, where emissions dropped by 0.5%, or 25 Mt, to 4 810 Mt of CO2, marking the third consecutive year of decline. While coal-to-gas switching played a major role in reducing emissions in previous years, last year the drop was the result of higher renewables-based electricity generation and a decline in electricity demand. The share of renewables in electricity generation reached a record level of 17%, while the share of nuclear power held steady at 20%.
…
The growth in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2017 is a strong warning for global efforts to combat climate change, and demonstrates that current efforts are insufficient to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
It seems President Trump was right. The U.S. isn’t even a part of the Paris accord anymore since president Trump pulled out of the accord last year, and yet it is the leader in CO2 emission reductions by country.
Predictably, warmists will not be amused.
Excellent. There is nothing quite like a full jug of schadenfreude.
… or a full crock of shit.
Trump has still NOT “pulled out” of Paris. Nothing but hot air ( not pun ).
what he has done is so far refused to continue throwing tax payers dollars into the UN slush fund. That is certainly praiseworthy but nothing more than an act of not paying which could be reversed by him or someone else else in the future.
“Global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by …. ”
so where is the rest of report what about transport related or domestic consumption. Is it only the energy related subcategory which fits your narrative?
I get really tired of this kind of selective reporting.
“One of the main drivers of growth was the transport sector.”
maybe you should learn to read.
You mean that you thin domestic consumption dropped?
The CO2 reporting is a bit flaky — at best it would appear to be guesses and manufactured data. Whether CO2 production is rising or falling would best be determined by a coin toss.
https://climateaudit.org/2015/12/23/cop21-emission-projections/
Yes the Australia’s media does focus on emissions from electricity generation and ignores the other CO2 contributors.
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen some 30% since 1990, of which less than half was from electricity generation and the rest from all other areas including transport, industrial processes, agriculture etc. with transport recording the largest increase of 35%.
“since the evacuation of American leadership”…
Who writes this crap?………never has America had stronger leadership….leadership is knowing when to pull out…and stop dishing our money out to these wet diaper sh1tholes that stab us in the back every chance they get
Europe’s increased CO2 emissions need to be highlighted more than the USA’s decline. Obviously we need tariffs on their products if we want to save the planet, right? /s
Plus many
So the world’s increase in wind and solar energy didn’t even keep up with the increase in fossil fuel use after investing $Ts. The world may have done more by converting the money spent/taxed/ to paper currency and burning it!
Steam turbines running off the heat would have produced more electricity, more reliably, more humanely (as far as the birds are concerned) than all this renewables nonsense.
+97,000,000
They would have also saved the landscape from the blight of those things, the nearby residents from the disturbing noise, and the wasted building materials and cost of constructing, maintaining, and repairing them.
And bats. Crop-eating insects thank the wind turbines for slicing, dicing and clubbing to death their predators.
The bats make it through the turbines (they are good navigators, the best in the flying kingdom) but as soon as they make it to the other side of the turbine the pressure difference bursts their lungs.
For “slicing, dicing and clubbing”, please read “slicing, dicing, clubbing and exploding”.
Thanks!
Now, If mankind would just stop exhaling less CO2, the Climate Change “crisis” will be solved.
no because the CO2 that we get comes from plants we grow
BIOLOGY 101-WE EXHALE C02, PLANTS BREATH IT, EXHALING O2
This clearly shows that, in spite of the hundreds of billions spent on renewables, there has not been a significant dent made in the levels of CO2 emissions worldwide. If this means that temperatures will rise, adaptation is the correct response.
BIG if. The fact is, no empirical evidence exists to support the notion that higher CO2 levels will drive the Earth’s temperature up. This notion is nothing more than a hypothetical, and requires the usual “all other things held equal” caveat. In the real world, “all other things” are most definitely NOT “held equal,” the feedbacks are offsetting/negative feedbacks (which can be seen from the Earth’s climate history, which does NOT show any effect of CO2 levels on temperature), and the “real world” effect is essentially nil.
The correct response to ANY “climate change” still is and will always be to adapt to the changes that actually occur, no matter which direction they go. Anything else is pure folly. WE do NOT control the Earth’s climate, and we’re not going to stop it from “changing.”
More can be done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRQ7S92_lo
The decision has to be made that more want more to be done. Talk doesn’t fix it.
Neither do solutions that are already known not to work.
Sid says, ” Talk doesn’t fix it.”
Fix what? Greener deserts, forests and plains, 20 percent more food on zero increase in water and land, more drought tolerant crops and forrest. Why fix that?
David you must live in a very blessed area. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/cape-town-running-out-of-water-drought-taps-shutoff-other-cities/
Our technology has been used in another industry for a different purpose for over 80 years. Guaranteed to do as we claim it will, but probably at less than $15 a ton.
“Our technology”
I knew it, the guys either an investor or an employee. In other words, he’s being paid to push this trash.
He also leaves out that his own article explains that climate change is one part of a larger problem 🙂
WUWT had a March 3 article on Capetown’s Cape Town’s water shortage: it’s mostly due to population increase and a failure to provide more reservoirs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/03/claim-cape-town-day-zero-drought-caused-by-global-warming/
the mods should stop Abma ‘s advertisement.
Agreed
I would love to see a 2C rise in global temps. We are currently in the interglacial with the lowest temps since the Minoan Warm. If you look at the graphs of Paleo temps, each succeeding one has been less warm than the previous one. I see colder temps in our future, cooler summers and harsher winters. This does not fill me with glee….
Agreed. Amazing how the “long term trend” is COOLING, *NOT* warming, yet the (MUCH) shorter (but measured by more modern means) and relatively meaningless “long term” trend is all they want to talk about.
Of course, a glacier could be pushing its way through the Bronx and they would STILL find some pseudo-science explanation to blame THAT on human activity, specifically the burning of those evil fossil fuels, too.
That’s really easy. They’ll just plug in a different number for their CO2 forcing factor and PRESTO! Humans are causing the glacier by warming themselves!
And we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Warmer = Life. Colder = Death. And that *is* settled science.
— but — after death, things might get a little hot for some people!
False. Warmer does not equal life when you are living in India, which already reaches 45C in the summer.
17:45 European Daylight Saving Time, here in Southern Spain, the outside temperature is 19 Celsius. Twenty years ago we were told that in 20 years, this would be a desert if atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise. It isn’t and they have. We have had one of the wettest winters for years and the reservoirs are doing quite nicely, despite the prophets of doom. There are climate refugees but they are all heading towards the equator instead of away from it.
I recently returned from Portugal. It pretty much rained steadily for the three weeks I was there, wretchedly chilly too! While some sun would have been preferable, perhaps this wet winter will calm down the forest fires this summer.
It could also make them worse if it promotes more growth that dries out when the summer sun arrives.
Many moons ago my brother and I were on the beach competing for the best sandcastle. I built mine big with a lovely windmill and twiddledibits on top; whereas his was small and lots of miserable protective walls down tide. At tea time I reckoned I had won; but when we returned after tea and buns, mine was a miserable lump with the windmill horizontal in the sluicing water – gone; whilst his was still there. Looking a bit miserable but still there in defiance of the waves!
I learned a lot from that .
Does this mean the Hypocritical Climate Alarmists will stop pestering President Trump and America about not participating in the Treaty?
Snicker…………………..
Not a chance, since proper virtue signaling takes precedence over actual performance.
PM Trudeau was hailed a global hero by the UN for his climate efforts. This was shortly after he gave them $2.6B of our tax dollars to buy UN votes for everything “sustainable”. I’m sure he’ll dress up as “something” to receive all his awards.
Just today this article appeared in the Financial Post:
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/doug-ford-is-about-to-change-climate-change-policy-for-the-whole-country-and-its-about-time
“the following are considered even “in range” of their Paris targets: Morocco, Gambia, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India, and the Philippines.”
If only global warming would only arrive, then CO2 emissions could fall. Less fuel spent heating in winter those Northern industrialized nations.
“If only global warming would only arrive, then CO2 emissions could fall.”
Maybe. Warming oceans might cause CO2 to rise, and that might brew up all sorts of tipping point talk.
“Warming oceans might cause CO2 to rise”
97% of the water is in the oceans. The oceans cover 71 % of the earth’s surface. There is 332,519,000 cubic miles of water on the planet with 321,003,271 cubic miles of it in the oceans. What heat source other than the sun that already has been doing it for 4.6 billion years is going to heat that much water? So I guess you have the AGW theory backwards.
Further to Alan T’s comments: –
As he indicates, the Oceans are BIG; 321,000,000 cubic miles [yes, rounded].
Every one of those cubic miles contains 4 (yes, rounded again) cubic kilometres of sea water.
4 times 321,000,000 is a biggish number – you do the sum.
Remember you are working in cubic kilometres.
Every cubic kilometre (1,000,000,000 cubic metres) is sufficient to drown the entire human population of our planet, allowing an average of over 130 litres per person [yes, rounded again].
Average displacement – at a guess – is perhaps sixty litres, corresponding to an average weight – covering man, woman, child – of a little over 60 Kilos – nine and a half stone [rounded again].
So, a fair bit to spare. I reckon.
A little perspective, if of use.
Auto
NB – I do not advocate drowning everyone.
No one has ever adequately explained just what tipping point they were talking about or its consequences. Our dear old Earth has had carbon dioxide levels much higher than what we see now and life of all kinds flourished, including mammals like us. Does someone think that Earth will end up becoming like Venus – a pure carbon dioxide atmosphere, sulfuric acid rain, and temperatures somewhere north of 700 C?
I still find it difficult to comprehend that people believe that a single factor – carbon dioxide – which is an infinitesimal fraction of our atmosphere’s composition, would have the profound effect on global temperatures that so many insist is the case. If that was indeed the case then I would think that all life would have been wiped from the Earth eons ago.
I think what they’re finding is what any efficiency expert could have told you before you started. The first 5%-10% improvements are easy. Every percentage point after that requires a doubling of the previous effort. The low hanging fruit is gone.
I noted India on the list the first time around. I simply can’t hold back this time: India committed to unrestrained growth in CO2 emissions.
And don’t forget that the “stretch” goal from the Paris agreement was 1.5C.
And that in itself is an attempt at deception. They want people to think most of that 1.5C is due to humans, when in fact most of it so far has been natural warming out of the pre-industrial ‘little ice age’.
Just a side note for reality watchers, you don’t pay off sovereign debt by killing the economy or even slowing it down a little.
We will always have Paris…
Oh wait.
The focus on tiny emissions rates of change is, like Earth Hour, classic shell game distraction from where the pea really is, which is that your ludicrously expensive electricity is Snake Oil:
Meh, what could go wrong?
http://blueskiesmeteorology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NCDC-NOAA-800k-year-co2-concentration.gif
Fun with splicing! Apples, oranges… who cares?
Yeah, well into the 400s now. Nothing to see, move along. lol.
Whoosh!
Blame negative interest rates in the EU, growth subsidies and state-run industry in China, and business as usual everywhere else, except where they were expecting U.S. wealth transfers to line their pockets.
Wasn’t one of the main concerns of the Paris accord that if the U.S. had made its commitment into a treaty it would have been enforceable in court? If that case it would only have been a matter of time before the U.S. or at least some U.S. energy companies could have been sued for potentially any damage caused by any extreme climate event worldwide. And of course there would be constantly increasing demands from other countries for increased contributions. Not a good road to start down.
So now we have a herd of ignorant global politicians wandering around the “climate science desert” without USA leadership OR USA MONEY (MOST IMPORTANTLY, NO USA MONEY).
…and the USA continues to reduce CO2 while European leaders can’t even figure out which way is up, let alone meet their sacred commitment to reduce CO2 (or any other commitments, like healthy banks, adequate defense spending, or energy independence).
What could possibly go wrong?
No problem – all they need do at the next climate gabpalooza shindig in December is to double down on the rhetoric, hand-wringing, and wailing, plus promises to “do more”, and wallah, a new, even better agreement. They will even “discover” that they “don’t need”, although would “certainly welcome” the participation of the US, and urge Trump to reconsider his stance. The new agreement will once again be hailed as a “great success, although certainly, much more work needs to be done”. The “we are still stupid” squad of various cities, states, etc. will also weigh in with their “contributions”. It will be wonderful.
Prince Charles said in 2008 that we had 100 months left to “save the planet from global warming”. Those 4 years were “up” in 2012 so we should be roasting under the HUGE increase in CO2 emissions now. I don’t see any evidence of this ?? !!!!
Sorry, it should read 8 years so 2 years ago.
Vanessa
“Those 8 years were “up” in 2016 so we should be roasting under the HUGE increase in CO2 emissions now. I don’t see any evidence of this ?? !!!!” [Corrected for you are requested.
Evidence – look out of the window.
All that white stuff is ‘global warming’.
Apparently.
According to the SJWs.
“If it gets colder, that is Proof [PROOF, if you like] of Global Warming.
Send much more money.”
I think I have that quote right.
Auto
What a pessimistic and negative article. The increase in emissions is very low, and comes after three years of flat emissions. If we look at the 5-year rate of increase, it is at its lowest in over 20 years.
It is clear that our emissions are stabilizing. If current trends continue we will have flat emissions in a decade or two and a decrease in emissions soon afterwards, approaching moderate emissions scenarios, like RCP4.5.
And Trump might further contribute to a global reduction in CO₂ emissions with his little commercial war with the rest of the world. All in all the future looks brilliant in terms of CO₂.
Javier
Has the start temperature for the two degrees rise been established yet ? The last I read was that the IPCC was still confirming the start date and temperature point for the two degrees rise.
A simple chart identifying the temperature trend from that start date and value would be most useful. I believe we are about 1.3C towards the 2C heating death spiral.
Currently all we hear is two degrees, the general public have no idea where we are on that journey.
Regards
“Currently all we hear is two degrees, the general public have no idea where we are on that journey.”
It would seem that we are nowhere close to a 2C increase in global temps. Not that it would even be noticed by the vast majority of people. Really, do we care a fig about global average temps when it the temp/weather where we actually live that matters?
Ozonebust, pre-industrial temperature is generally considered 0.3 °C below the 1961-1990 average. As of 2017 we are 1.15 °C above pre-industrial. It seems to me that 1.5 °C above pre-industrial should be reachable.
Javier
Don’t see any evening out of the CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa, and that’s the only one that (supposedly) counts.
I suspect after a few years of flailing around WITHOUT USA MONEY, somebody might discover that CO2 isn’t really driving temperature and everybody can forget about Mauna Loa (except for the beaches).
Don’t be so hasty, Javert. Atmospheric CO₂ responds very slowly to small changes in emissions, because it is very large, while emissions are small, and the change in emissions is tiny. The slowing in atmospheric CO₂ increase should be detectable in ~ 10 years.
According to this joannenova posting, CO2 lags temp by 800 deg. That being the case shouldn’t Mauna Loa Keeling Curve reflect temperature in 1218?
Sorry should have been 800 years.
According to this joannenova posting, CO2 lags temp by 800 years. That being the case shouldn’t Mauna Loa Keeling Curve reflect temperature in 1218?
pmhinsc, you have to distinguish between paleo changes before emissions and current changes due to emissions. The radiative change due to increased CO₂ is instantaneous, while the feedbacks might be delayed. The Keeling curve only reflects changes in CO₂, not temperature, and the increasing trend in the Keeling curve is caused by our emissions.
Javier: “ you have to distinguish between paleo changes before emissions and current changes due to emissions.”
The keeling curve doesn’t distinguish between paleo vs. current co2, so how can I distinguish between them. If magically all current natural and anthropogenic co2 dropped to zero the Keeling curve should still be changing to reflect temperature in 1218. That being the case we could stop all anthropogenic co2 and the Keeling curve could theoretically still keep rising and according to CAGW theory, temperature changes in 1218 could cause runaway global temperatures.
If I understand (or misunderstand as the case may be) the paleo co2 reflects natural co2 being released from organic growth (which is a function of temperature) 800 years ago. It takes 800 years for a tree to grow, die, decay, and release co2. The warmer the temperature the more organic materal. Until there is greater understanding of natural co2 release we cannot quantitatively distinguish between natural and anthropogenic co2 in our atmosphere.
pmhinsc,
The CO2 levels followed temperature in the past 800,000 years with a surprising linear ratio of about 16 ppmv/K. Not by coincidence, that is the solubilty change of CO2 in ocean surface waters, according to Henry’s law. The 800 years lag is only for the rise in ocean temperature and is much longer when temperatures are cooling into a new ice age. It may have its origin with the 800 year overturning of deep ocean waters from the polar sink places to the equatortial upwelling places.
With 16 ppmv/K the ~1 K warming since the LIA is good for 16 ppmv of the 110 ppmv increase. The rest is from human emissions.
Ferdinand: “With 16 ppmv/K the ~1 K warming since the LIA is good for 16 ppmv of the 110 ppmv increase. The rest is from human emissions.”
Thank you for the reply.
I understand that you are saying man has caused 94ppmv and nature 16ppmv.
Javier,
To the contrary, this article applauds the reductions in CO2 emissions in the USA (if you think that matters at all…) and gleefully provides a standing ovation for President Trump pulling the USA out of the economy destroying Paris-ite Climate Accord!
Both are quite positive and admirable results, dontcha think?!!
To the extent that there are emissions reductions, (assuming the made up numbers reflect reality) it’s because of things that would have happened anyway. The drop in the price of natural gas, thanks to frakking, has caused a shift away from coal. Plus other efficiency improvements which were adopted because they save people money, not because of government pressure.
Hmm no. The article has a clearly negative title “#ParisAgreement climate accord fails – CO2 emissions growing worldwide- Trump vindicated for pulling out”
Expecting that the Paris accord should cause a reduction of emissions in its first year is already quite silly when the pledges are for 2030. And in any case a slower growth of emissions was already baked in the cake before Paris accord was signed.
Trump can only take credit for saving money towards the green fund, but not for any CO2 changes. And the article is about CO2, not money.
Hmmm – Yes!
Lighten up, Javi! And join us in celebrating our US successes!
This is the moment: President Trump has started ‘healing the world’!
I congratulate you on the US decrease in emissions specially since it has been achieved with strong economic growth. No doubt the effect of cheap gas from fracking.
I agree that US pulling out of Paris makes sense, and I wish the EU hadn’t signed this accord that will cost money and accomplish nothing.
I am not too happy with the increasing US isolationism and unilateralism. US international relations are deteriorating and that can’t be good.
Read carefully, Javier!
1) RE: “Trump can only take credit for saving money towards the green fund, but not for any CO2 changes.” Fail.
I did not attribute the US CO2 reductions to President Trump. Neither did the posted article. It stated he was ‘vindicated’ (past tense’) in his decision to pull the US out of the Paris-ite Climate Accord.
The problem is that the Paris accord did not cause that so called drop in emissions.
Emissions are utterly meaningless since they are made up numbers from the get go.
No they are not. Nearly all fossil fuels extracted on a given year are burned. There are some uncertainties about the actual amount of fossil fuels produced, burned, and stored, but it is not very large. Only for emissions that include other things like changes in land use the numbers start to be very uncertain.
Yes, and you actually expect countries to accurately report those numbers?
You can trust China and Russia well you have to if you live there 🙂
If humans indeed emit less CO2, the plants and other photosynthesizers of the world dependent on the air to make their food will not thank us.
Javier, you are engaged in graphic wiggle-watching, and making future predictions based on the latest wiggle.
If you look at the performance and reasonable expectations of the largest emitters, China and India, you get a different view of the future. Throw in the “low lying fruit” truism and you get BAU growth.
Successful forecasting relies on being conservative and keeping up with new trends. It works the same for summer Arctic sea ice than for future emissions. There is a new trend to move away from coal that cannot be ignored. Even if ultimately unsuccessful it is likely to have a significant effect on our emissions because it is already having it.
I’m not so sure that coal production will continue falling. It’s not dropping because of renewables. Only in the US, where gas is replacing it, is the decline of recent years liable to continue. Here’s the summary for 2016:
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-production-data.html
Coal production plunged (-6.1%), in line with China’s decline (-9%)
China, which represents 44% of world coal and lignite production, recorded a contraction in its production for the third consecutive year. To help support domestic prices, the Chinese Government has implemented measures to reduce coal production capacities including the closure of the most inefficient mines. In addition, the country’s output was also impacted by legislation from April 2016 that has cut coal mine production to a 276-day basis, down from 330 days previously. This measure was, however, eased again during the autumn.
Colombia and Russia, two of the world largest coal exporters, increased their production in the second half of 2016 to supply the international market.
Resulting from the government’s willingness to lower its import dependency, India favoured an increase in its domestic coal output.
Coal production dipped strongly in the USA because of reduced national demand combined with the financial issues facing its main producers, three out of the four largest producers filed for bankruptcy in 2016.
Before you can follow trends, you have to understand the reason behind the trends, otherwise you are just doing brain dead curve fitting.
The drop in coal was due to the decrease in nat gas prices caused by frakking. This has caused an increase in the cost of nat gas and a decrease in the cost of coal.
That particular trend is pretty much played out.
The arctic ice loss has been for the most part, been caused by factors that have already played out. No matter how much you keep praying, it’s another trend that is destined to end soon.
Another one that thinks the US are the entire world. You really have no grasp on the data yet you think you understand what is going on.
I was referring to the rest of the world, Javier.
Sorry, Javier. I took your comment as a response to my comment.
NO We need more CO2 not less. If we are to feed 8 billion people ( almost there now) we need CO2 levels as high as real greenhouses 1200 ppm would be about right. Even if the planet warmed by 2 or 3 degrees so what? I highly doubt it would based on the evidence of the last 68 years.
Well, good luck convincing the world that we need more CO₂ emissions. That is not the path we are trying to go.
The world often goes on ill-advised paths.
The world doesn’t need convincing it’s going there by every reported real figure.
Excellent Javier so we can all ignore the agreement and get back to normal.
This would just mean a deceleration, according to the prevailing wisdom in which the CO2 we emit continues accumulating as long as we continue emitting.
It’s all nonsense. The rate of change of CO2 concentration does not track our emissions. It tracks temperature anomaly.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.175/offset:0.142
“The rate of change of CO2 concentration does not track our emissions” …. correct, the absolute concentration of CO2 tracks our emissions.
“Emissions” commonly refers to emissions on a yearly basis, i.e., as a rate. See, e.g., the plot in Javier’s comment up above.
And no, the absolute concentration does not track our accumulated emissions very well at all. Beyond the happenstance of going generally in the same direction, there is virtually no correlation at all.
A rate of emissions, such as gigatons per year is different than your ” rate of change of CO2 concentration”
…
Pure apples and oranges.
You see Mr. Bartemis, your temperature anomaly offers us no explanation for this linear trend: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/trend
The other problem with your graphic Mr. Bartemis, is that standing alone, it does not tell us which plotted variable is independent and which is dependent.
A person could look at your graphic Mr. Bartemis and find that it provides evidence that the variation in CO2 concentrations is causing the variation in temperature anomalies.
If you are using that graphic/plot as evidence for something, you are on thin ice. Got any more substantial evidence?
Of course it offers an explanation, as the rate of change and the absolute concentration provide the same information, modulo an integration constant.
And, of course temperature is the independent variable. It would be absurd to claim that temperature is being driven by the rate of change of CO2.
None of these objections have merit.
No Bartemis you are dead wrong when you state: “the rate of change and the absolute concentration provide the same information ”
…
The integration constant is arbitrary, and requires additional information/data to set it’s value.
…
What data and/or observations are you using to determine it’s value?
” It would be absurd to claim that temperature is being driven by the rate of change of CO2.”
..
Other than waving your hands, what evidence do you have for making this assertion?
All of my objections have merit because you are basing all of your claims on a single graph that does not show causation.
Again Mr. Bartemis, I ask you to please provide me with an explanation of the linear trend in this data plot: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/trend
Your graphic matching the noise in the CO2 signal with the temperature anomaly is pretty good. It explains the noise, but does not explain the linear rise of CO2 in the time interval.
All you have to do is integrate. True, you can claim the linear part is from an arbitrary offset. But, there has to be an offset because the baseline of the temperature series is arbitrary.
More to the point, though, the quadratic term in the absolute concentration matches, which is the linear term in the rate domain. That linear term is only influenced by a scale factor, the same scale factor that matches the variation in the series. So, the linear term in rate is explained by the temperature relationship. But, the emissions have a trend, too. It is not needed. The ineluctable conclusion is that human inputs have negligible impact.
It’s an open and shut case. Eventually, people will realize it, and there will be a lot of flushed faces. The only reason people believe we are responsible is because it has been assumed for so long, and people are reluctant to stick their necks out and go against the herd. If the temperature “pause” continues, or even heads into a downturn, the discrepancy will eventually become too large to deny it.
It’s not an “open and shut case.” You have not provided a physical explanation for the linear rise in the concentration of atmospheric CO2, i.e. where is it coming from. Once you can show that, your curve fitting might seem appropriate.
This is an overview of my hypothesis. An exceedingly long term dynamic response produces essentially integral action in the near term. It’s a pretty straightforward application of commonplace systems theory.
Systems analysis doesn’t provide observational evidence of the source of the increasing atmospheric CO2. The link also provides references to Salby. If Salby’s theory is correct, then the last time the earth was covered with glaciers, the level of CO2 fell low enough to extinguish all plant life. You see, if the recent 1 degree C increased CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, then when global temps fell 3 degrees C, and glaciers covered most of the Northern Hemisphere, the atmospheric levels of CO2 were so low all photosynthesis stopped.
The observational evidence is the phenomenol fit between the rate of change of CO2 and the temperature anomaly. The non-arbitrary components of the fit show that there is little room for anthropogenic forcing to have significant impact.
You do not understand Salby’s hypothesis. You are still dealing in proportionality rather than rates of change, and you are extrapolating local models to well beyond their range of applicability. But, regardless, nothing I am saying stands or falls with Salby, so it is a red herring.
Curve fitting is not observational evidence.
Mods, please ignore/delete above post.
Bartemis, curve fitting is not observational evidence.
Furthermore Bartemis, even if your graphic is accepted as “observational” evidence, it still fails to prove the source of the CO2. Case in point, the correlation between the noise in the CO2 signal, and the temperature anomaly proves nothing. One needs to posit evidence of causation.
Bartemis, here is why your exercise in curve fitting does not pass the “smell test” when reality is considered.
..
1) The CO2 signal curve with the derivative is never zero, nor is it ever less than zero: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative
.t
This means that the CO2 in the atmosphere is never level, nor is it ever decreasing. It is ALWAYS rising.
.
2) The temperature signal you use, absent the scale and offset factors spends considerable time less than zero, especially from 1980-2000: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6
..
So, from a physical viewpoint, you have a temperature anomaly signal that during the time interval in question takes on both positive and negative values. CO2 signal never drops, it continually rises. This makes any physical explanation of your supposed relationship physically impossible.
In other words Bartemis, a negative temperature anomaly causes a positive increase in CO2 (because the derivative never goes negative).
This shows you Bartemis what I’m talking about. The red CO2 derivative is always greater than zero, but the temperature anomaly spends a lot more time in negative territory than in positive: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/to:2000/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/to:2000/plot/noise/from:1979/to:2000/scale:0.00001
So Bartemis, the actual data shows us that when the temperature anomaly is negative (meaning the global temperature is LESS than average) CO2 levels rise (derivative greater than zero.)
..
Cooling causes a rise in CO2. How does Salby explain this ?
China assuming a “role” is just that. It is a political play. They have a free pass on Climate until 2030 and then they will do theie ‘best’ and have been busy building coal gen capacity to serve them for 50 years more. Meanwhile, it is a wonderful opportunity for them. They have an huge industry producing wind and solar for useful idiot countries and are everybody’s hero.
They know that Russia is being bashed, sanctioned and blamed unfairly for everything as punishment for refusal to go along with the “progressives” global gov initiative. The Chinese will end up the top dog in an empty kennel, but for now there is a lot of business and political capital to garner during the coming decade of insanity. When it is ‘decent’ to do so, Trump will normalize relations with Russia and the stars will be aligned differently. I wish I could see a rebirth of Europe but…
If these countries measure CO2 half as well as they measure their own GDP, it’s a joke.
ResourceGuy,
The different countries don’t measure CO2 emissions, they measure fossil fuel sales which each give their specific amount of CO2 when burned. Should be reasonable accurate, as they want their (un)fair share of the sales as taxes…
Probably somewhat underestimated due to human nature to avoid taxes and some countries who don’t like to be the biggest emitters (China…), but nevertheless about twice the increase in the atmosphere…
If the Ocean slowly cools with radiant heat loss to space via warmer Arctic waters and a discernible decrease in atmospheric temps the last 1.5 years since the Super El Nino of 2016, then there should be more atmospheric CO2 uptake by cooling oceans. Then the narrative will turn to how successful all the carbon taxes are and how successful the renewable buildout was, because CO2 concentrations will be either slowing, be flat or start falling. Especially if we go into a 30 year Secular cooling trend that is part of Natural Variation.
Another lose-lose scenario for skeptics that may soon present itself in the years to come, if significant future cooling is in the cards. However, if present La Nina conditions continue, then Atlantic hurricane intensity will increase, and more drought will be in the mix due to cooler and drier conditions with less atmospheric moisture. Which will also be fodder for the alarmists to show how CO2 is still destroying the world. Can’t win when all the cards are Aces for the the Alarmists. It is no wonder we have the ‘Climate Wars’, which WUWT continues to try and hold the alarmists to account.
Well how about that.
The one and almost only country to chuck out signing the Paris Agreement actually turns out to be the most significant country to also neck off CO₂ emissions. Which is the point of Paris. Which is the point of leaving it. To highlight just how mendacious are the other countries and their air-travelling armies of croissant munching glad-handers.
I think Trump is right: it is high time for the United States not to be the gelded-leader-just-like-Europe, but to stand out holding up a Writ of Mendacity that the sanctimonious (and noisy) world players blithely spout.
Keep it up Trump. You’re a “regular sort of American” who did what every child at some point wishes for… made a billion, became president, is ignoring the toadies, and is doing “it” the American Way. I feel the same about the much worried-about “trade wars”.
SANCTIONS against offenders bearing long histories of artificially dumping product onto America’s markets at-or-below manufacturing cost … must stop. If it takes tariffs, in spite of all the Free Traders who get their knickers in a twist every time ANY modest threat of competitive rebalancing surfaces, in spite of them, or maybe just to spite them, pull it off, Prez Trump. Be prepared for a backlash of multiplicatively high proportions. Don’t worry about it.
The United States definitely needs to have its primary baseline industries refunded, refloated, and reënergized. Tariffs do a good job at that.
Just saying.
GoatGuy
‘Trade wars’ usually result in new, more equitable trade agreements. That seems to be where we are headed with President Trump, our Negotiator-In-Chief, and China…. and I heartily applaud Trump’s efforts!
Equitable usually means that the country with the greatest economic clout gets to dictate terms that are to it’s benefit.
markw,
China is a militaristic, aggressive, and increasingly belligerent global power. It is not just about economic clout, as we are seeing in the current attempts by the Chinese to militarize and annex the entirety of the South China sea.
Last Friday, Commander In Chief Donald Trump had a US destroyer sail within 12 miles of a Chinese military base, built on top of a reef they destroyed in the Spratly Islands of the South China sea. The Chinese built these reef destroying military bases throughout the South China sea during the bow-to-every-socialist-dictator Obama regime. President Trump is exercising international ‘Freedom of Navigation’ rights encoded in the the 1982 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea, to refute China’s very recent claims to this huge area of our planet.
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-navy-destroyer-sails-south-china-sea-amid-chinese-combat-drills-2665527
Our Commander In Chief and Negotiator In Chief is confronting the Chinese, both economically and militarily, to begin to blunt their territorial expansion aggressions of the past 9 years.
Yet still has to do a lot of catch up to match the US on that. We only have to compare military expense, number of conflicts involved and percentage of territory taken by force from neighbors. I guess it goes with the status of superpower.
Fascinating how trolls actually can’t tell the difference between the lies they tell each other and reality.
Go back 200 years, and you will be hard pressed to find much occupied land that hasn’t traded hands at least once over that period. Yet according to the trolls, such actions are only evil when the US does it.
Javier March 26, 2018 at 4:01 pm
China has been in more conflicts than the US, and often the same ones.
It has taken most of its land from others by force, to include Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Uighuristan and smaller regions in the center and SE of the country.
Its military spending is lower because it pays its conscripts practically nothing. And it saves on R&D by stealing our secrets or bribing the Clintons for them. Yet the official budget for its approximately 2,285,000 active personnel is still #2 in the world. The PLA is the world’s largest military force, and its official budget is a sham.
That’s because the US is the world’s defender…..no other country does that
Javier March 26, 2018 at 4:01 pm
The US bought the Louisiana Territory from France. It wasn’t taken by force. Ditto the Gadsden Purchase and Alaska. There was fighting with Indians in the territory, but the US was just the last group to fight the indigenous population, tribes of which were constantly fighting over turf.
The vast majority of northern Mexico in 1848 was not under Mexican control. The territory Mexico ceded for a price then after the war was land it didn’t really have. There were small settlements in New Mexico and California (around missions) and an intermittent fort at Tucson, AZ. The rest of the SW was still Indian Country at that time, including all of NV, UT and CO, except for the Mormons in UT.
Texas joined the Union voluntarily. The Oregon Territory was acquired peaceably through treaties. There was however a Pig War over the San Juan Island Islands in 1859 before the US-British Colombia boundary was adjudicated internationally
Javier,
The US engages rising threats and wannabe dictators in local or regional conflicts, with the deliberate intent of preventing World War IV. (WW III was The Cold War, a perfect example of the protracted interventions of the USA resulting in the containment of the USSR repeated expansion attempts and its ultimate dissolution.) The ‘strategic non-engagement’ of the Obama regime succeeded in allowing China to weaponize the entire South China sea, invigorated both Russia and China to upgrade their armies and navies, and completely neglected the US military et.al. The mess created by the myopic Obama regime was left for the Trump administration and subsequent Presidents to deal with.
‘Super power status’ has nothing to do with anything. If the US doesn’t confront aggressively expansionist China, who will? Malaysia? The Philippines? Viet Nam? Brunei? ……The EU???
His theory is that since the US allegedly behaved badly in the past. We have no right to complain when China behaves badly today.
That is, nobody should confront China.
How is this calculated – fuel consumption? How will the current NH winter fuel consumption impact?
Regards
M
It’s not calculated. It’s reported by the governments of the responding countries.
How do those countries calculate their reported emissions.
A few make an honest effort to actually measure how much coal, oil and natural gas were consumed.
Most just make it up.
“Most just make it up.”
Evidence to support that claim?
Really? Doesn’t look to me like China it trying to reduce its emissions.
?w=720
Didn’t China state that they were planning to peek emissions in 2030?
Yes and they will miss that on current projections. They are looking like they will peak direct CO2 emissions like this article is about but they will miss by miles on non-CO2 GHG emissions.
Source: the green lunatics fringes own monitoring group
http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html
What I found interesting in this article is not quoted above. First, there was an admission of how difficult and unlikely that carbon sequestration will be the solution to preventing a 2C rise in temperature. Second, the article spent a considerable amount of space discussing a study that the number of deaths to be expected if we have a 2 degree instead of a 1.5 degree rise will be 150 million people. The author states this as 25 Holocausts. There is no discussion as to how this would happen, just condemnation for inaction.
To anyone who understands the influence of economics and political tolerance any action is purely symbolic. Unfortunately such people are few and far between
Regards
M
There will not be a 2 degree rise in temperature. That number is based on the wildly overestimated ‘forcing’ by CO2 in fundamentally flawed climate models. The failure of the Paris treaty is without consequence in the real world. In the imaginary world of virtue signaling it’s a different story, but what rationalist cares about that?
direct from the IEA report
“The overall share of fossil fuels in global energy demand in 2017 remained at 81%, a level that has remained stable for more than three decades despite strong growth in renewables.”
Proof that intermittent renewables will NEVER replace fossil fuels.
Quoting: David Wallace-Wells
WOW, so anthropogenic carbon emissions grew by 1.7 percent in 2017, but atmospheric carbon only grew by 1.95 ppm in 2017. …… to wit:
Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 2013 thru 2018
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May
year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38 (lowest CO2 ppm in 2017)
After the Autumnal equinox on Sep 21st, atmospheric CO2 ppm began increasing, to wit:
2017 _ 10 (Oct ) _ 403.64 …. +0.26
2017 _ 11 (Nov) _ 405.14…. +1.50
2017 _ 12 (Dec) _ 406.82 …. +1.68
2018 __ 1 (Jan ) _ 407.98 …. +1.16
2018 __ 2 (Feb) _ 408.35 …. +0.37
2018 __ 3 (Mar) _ 410.16…. +1.81 …… total increase 6.78 ppm
There has been an average monthly increase of 1.13 ppm in CO2 for the 6 months of Oct 3, 2017 thru Mar 5, 2018.
CO2 ppm will continue to increase during the month of April 2018 and during the 1st 17 to 21 days of May 2018, when it will reach its “maximum CO2 ppm” for fiscal year 2018, which I estimate will be 413.13 ppm.
The US involvement was just an agreement between BHO and a bunch of other world leaders, it wasn’t ratified by the Senate so basically just another EO.
So… we… won’t always have Paris?
Co2 has nothing to do with the global warming scam the UN stated that the global warming meme is a way to take money off developed countries and give it to other underdeveloped countries. CO2 is the means to make a cash cow through propaganda it does not warm the planet it just makes plants grow better. This entire episode of our history in the future will be looked upon with a frown and a chuckle that we could be so stupid.
Well maybe the answer is to double the number of all expenses paid conferences . Get Al and Di creep to fly over by jet pooling .